THE  ORIGIN  OF 

PAUL'S  RELIGION 


THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO   •    DALLAS 
ATLANTA   •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OP  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


THE  ORIGIN  OF 
PAUL'S   RELIGION 


THE  JAMES  SPRUNT  LECTURES 

DELIVERED  AT  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
IN  VIRGINIA 


BY 


J.  GRESHAM  MACHEN,  D.D.    tier- 

Assistant  Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature  and 
Exegesis  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary 


H3eto  gorfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1921 

All  rights  reserved 


PRINTED   IN   THE  UNITED   STATES   OF   AMERICA 


COPYRIGHT,  1921, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 

Set  np  and  printed.     Published  October,   1921. 


Press  of 

J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 
WILLIAM  PARK  ARMSTRONG 

MY    GUIDE 

IN    THE    STUDY   OF    THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 
AND    IN    ALL    GOOD    THINGS 


£28580 


THE  JAMES  SPRUNT  LECTURES 

IN  1911  Mr.  James  Sprunt  of  Wilmington,  North  Carolina, 
gave  to  The  Trustees  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  Vir- 
ginia the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars,  since  increased  by  his 
generosity  to  fifty  thousand  dollars,  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  perpetual  lectureship,  which  would  enable  the  institu- 
tion to  secure  from  time  to  time  the  services  of  distinguished 
ministers  and  authoritative  scholars,  outside  the  regular 
Faculty,  as  special  lecturers  on  subjects  connected  with  various 
departments  of  Christian  thought  and  Christian  work.  The 
lecturers  are  chosen  by  the  Faculty  of  the  Seminary  and  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  and  the  lectures  are  published 
after  their  delivery  in  accordance  with  a  contract  between  the 
lecturer  and  these  representatives  of  the  institution.  The  ninth 
series  of  lectures  on  this  foundation  is  presented  in  this  volume. 

W.  W.  MOORE,  President. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGB 

I.     INTRODUCTION 

II.     THE  EARLY  YEARS 43 

III.     THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM 71 

IV.     PAUL  AND  JESUS         .            H7 

V.     THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT 173 

VI.     THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE      .      .      .  211 

VII.     REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  AND  IN  PAUL    .      .  255 

VIII.     THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS 293 

INDEX                                                                        ...  319 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 


THE 
ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

CHAPTER    I 

INTRODUCTION 

THE  following  discussion  is  intended  to  deal,  from  one  par- 
ticular point  of  view,  with  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. That  problem  is  an  important  historical  problem, 
and  also  an  important  practical  problem.  It  is  an  important 
historical  problem  not  only  because  of  the  large  place  which 
Christianity  has  occupied  in  the  medieval  and  modern  world, 
but  also  because  of  certain  unique  features  which  even  the  most 
unsympathetic  and  superficial  examination  must  detect  in  the 
beginnings  of  the  Christian  movement.  The  problem  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity  is  also  an  important  practical  problem. 
Rightly  or  wrongly,  Christian  experience  has  ordinarily  been 
connected  with  one  particular  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Chris- 
tian movement ;  where  that  view  has  been  abandoned,  the  experi- 
ence has  ceased. 

This  dependence  of  Christianity  upon  a  particular  con- 
ception of  its  origin  and  of  its  Founder  is  now  indeed  being 
made  the  object  of  vigorous  attack.  There  are  many  who 
maintain  that  Christianity  is  the  same  no  matter  what  its 
origin  was,  and  that  therefore  the  problem  of  origin  should 
be  kept  entirely  separate  from  the  present  religious  interests 
of  the  Church.  Obviously,  however,  this  indifference  to  the 
question  as  to  what  the  origin  of  Christianity  was  depends 
upon  a  particular  conception  of  what  Christianity  now  is;  it 
depends  upon  the  conception  which  makes  of  Christianity 
simply  a  manner  of  life.  That  conception  is  indeed  wide- 
spread, but  it  is  by  no  means  universal ;  there  are  still  hosts  of 
earnest  Christians  who  regard  Christianity,  not  simply  as  a 
manner  of  life,  but  as  a  manner  of  life  founded  upon  a  message 
—upon  a  message  with  regard  to  the  Founder  of  the  Christian 

3 


4  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

movement.  For  such  persons  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity  is  rather  to  be  called  the  question  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  and  that  question  is  to  them  the  most  im- 
portant practical  question  of  their  lives.  Even  if  these  persons 
are  wrong,  the  refutation  of  their  supposed  error  naturally 
proceeds,  and  has  in  recent  years  almost  always  proceeded, 
primarily  by  means  of  that  very  discussion  of  the  origin  of  the 
Christian  movement  which  is  finally  to  be  shorn  of  its  practical 
interest.  The  most  important  practical  question  for  the  modern 
Church  is  still  the  question  how  Christianity  came  into  being. 

In  recent  years  it  has  become  customary  to  base  discussions 
of  the  origin  of  Christianity  upon  the  apostle  Paul.  Jesus 
Himself,  the  author  of  the  Christian  movement,  wrote  nothing 
— at  least  no  writings  of  His  have  been  preserved.  The  record 
of  His  words  and  deeds  is  the  work  of  others,  and  the  date 
and  authorship  and  historical  value  of  the  documents  in  which 
that  record  is  contained  are  the  subject  of  persistent  debate. 
With  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  principal  epistles  of 
Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  and  with  regard  to  the  value  of  at 
least  part  of  the  outline  of  his  life  which  is  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Acts,  all  serious  historians  are  agreed.  The  testi- 
mony of  Paul,  therefore,  forms  a  fixed  starting-point  in  all 
controversy. 

Obviously  that  testimony  has  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  Paul  was  a  con- 
temporary of  Jesus.  He  attached  himself  to  Jesus'  disciples 
only  a  very  few  years  after  Jesus'  death;  according  to  his 
own  words,  in  one  of  the  universally  accepted  epistles,  he  came 
into  early  contact  with  the  leader  among  Jesus'  associates; 
throughout  his  life  he  was  deeply  interested  (for  one  reason  or 
another)  in  the  affairs  of  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church; 
both  before  his  conversion  and  after  it  he  must  have  had  abun- 
dant opportunity  for  acquainting  himself  with  the  facts  about 
Jesus'  life  and  death.  His  testimony  is  not,  however,  limited 
to  what  he  says  in  detail  about  the  words  and  deeds  of  the 
Founder  of  the  Christian  movement.  More  important  still  is 
the  testimony  of  his  experience  as  a  whole.  The  religion  of 
Paul  is  a  fact  which  stands  in  the  full  light  of  history.  How 
is  it  to  be  explained?  What  were  its  presuppositions?  Upon 
what  sort  of  Jesus  was  it  founded?  These  questions  lead  into 
the  very  heart  of  the  historical  problem.  Explain  the  origin 


INTRODUCTION  5 

of  the  religion  of  Paul,  and  you  have  solved  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity. 

That  problem  may  thus  be  approached  through  the  gate- 
way of  the  testimony  of  Paul.  But  that  is  not  the  only  way  to 
approach  it.  Another  way  is  offered  by  the  Gospel  picture  of 
the  person  of  Jesus.  Quite  independent  of  questions  of  date 
and  authorship  and  literary  relationships  of  the  documents, 
the  total  picture  which  the  Gospels  present  bears  unmistakable 
marks  of  being  the  picture  of  a  real  historical  person.  In- 
ternal evidence  here  reaches  the  point  of  certainty.  If  the 
Jesus  who  in  the  Gospels  is  represented  as  rebuking  the  Phar- 
isees and  as  speaking  the  parables  is  not  a  real  historical 
person  living  at  a  definite  point  in  the  world's  history,  then 
there  is  no  way  of  distinguishing  history  from  fiction.  Even 
the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  no 
stronger  than  this.  But  if  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  a  real 
person,  certain  puzzling  questions  arise.  The  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels  is  a  supernatural  person;  He  is  represented  as  pos- 
sessing sovereign  power  over  the  forces  of  nature.  What  shall 
be  done  with  this  supernatural  element  in  the  picture?  It  is 
certainly  very  difficult  to  separate  it  from  the  rest.  More- 
over the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  represented  as  advancing  some 
lofty  claims.  He  regarded  Himself  as  being  destined  to  come 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  be  the  instrument  in  judging 
the  world.  What  shall  be  done  with  this  element  in  His  con- 
sciousness? How  does  it  agree  with  the  indelible  impression  of 
calmness  and  sanity  which  has  always  been  made  by  His  char- 
acter? These  questions  again  lead  into  the  heart  of  the  prob- 
lem. Yet  they  cannot  be  ignored.  They  are  presented  in- 
evitably by  what  every  serious  historian  admits. 

The  fundamental  evidence  with  regard  to  the  origin  of 
Christianity  is  therefore  twofold.  Two  facts  need  to  be  ex- 
plained— the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  and  the  religion  of  Paul. 
The  problem  of  early  Christianity  may  be  approached  in  either 
of  these  two  ways.  It  should  finally  be  approached  in  both 
ways.  And  if  it  is  approached  in  both  ways  the  investigator 
will  discover,  to  his  amazement,  that  the  two  ways  lead  to  the 
same  result.  But  the  present  discussion  is  more  limited  in 
scope.  It  seeks  to  deal  merely  with  one  of  the  two  ways  of  ap- 
proach to  the  problem  of  Christianity.  What  was  the  origin 
of  the  religion  of  Paul? 


6  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

In  discussing  the  apostle  Paul  the  historian  is  dealing 
with  a  subject  important  for  its  own  sake,  even  aside  from  the 
importance  of  what  it  presupposes  about  Jesus.  Unquestion- 
ably Paul  was  a  notable  man,  whose  influence  has  been  felt 
throughout  all  subsequent  history.  The  fact  itself  cannot  be 
called  in  question.  But  since  there  is  wide  difference  of  opinion 
about  details,  it  may  be  well,  in  a  brief  preliminary  word,  to 
define  a  little  more  closely  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  in- 
fluence of  Paul. 

That  influence  has  been  exerted  in  two  ways.  It  was 
exerted,  in  the  first  place,  during  the  lifetime  of  Paul;  and 
it  has  been  exerted,  in  the  second  place,  upon  subsequent  gen- 
erations through  the  medium  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

With  regard  to  the  second  kind  of  influence,  general  con- 
siderations would  make  a  high  estimate  natural.  The  Pauline 
Epistles  form  a  large  proportion  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
has  been  regarded  as  fundamental  and  authoritative  in  all  ages 
of  the  Church.  The  use  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  as  normative 
for  Christian  thought  and  practice  can  be  traced  back  to 
very  early  times,  and  has  been  continuous  ever  since.  Yet 
certain  considerations  have  been  urged  on  the  other  side  as 
indicating  that  the  influence  of  Paul  has  not  been  so  great  as 
might  have  been  expected.  For  example,  the  Christianity  of 
the  Old  Catholic  Church  at  the  close  of  the  second  century 
displays  a  strange  lack  of  understanding  for  the  deeper  ele- 
ments in  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  something  of 
the  same  state  of  affairs  may  be  detected  in  the  scanty  re- 
mains of  the  so-called  "Apostolic  Fathers"  of  the  beginning 
of  the  century.  The  divergence  from  Paul  was  not  conscious ; 
the  writers  of  the  close  of  the  second  century  all  quote  the 
Pauline  Epistles  with  the  utmost  reverence.  But  the  fact  of 
the  divergence  cannot  altogether  be  denied. 

Various  explanations  of  this  divergence  have  been  pro- 
posed. Baur  explained  the  un-Pauline  character  of  the  Old 
Catholic  Church  as  due  to  a  compromise  with  a  legalistic  Jew- 
ish Christianity;  Ritschl  explained  it  as  due  to  a  natural 
process  of  degeneration  on  purely  Gentile  Christian  ground; 
Von  Harnack  explains  it  as  due  to  the  intrusion,  after  the 
time  of  Paul,  of  Greek  habits  of  thought.  The  devout  believer, 
on  the  other  hand,  might  simply  say  that  the  Pauline  doctrine 


INTRODUCTION  7 

of  grace  was  too  wonderful  and  too  divine  to  be  understood 
fully  by  the  human  mind  and  heart.1 

Whatever  the  explanation,  however,  the  fact,  even  after 
exaggerations  have  been  avoided,  remains  significant.  It  re- 
mains true  that  the  Church  of  the  second  century  failed  to 
understand  fully  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  way  of  salvation. 
The  same  lack  of  understanding  has  been  observable  only  too 
frequently  throughout  subsequent  generations.  It  was  there- 
fore with  some  plausibility  that  Von  Harnack  advanced  his 
dictum  to  the  effect  that  Paulinism  has  established  itself  as  a 
ferment,  but  never  as  a  foundation,  in  the  history  of  doctrine.2 

In  the  first  place,  however,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
dictum  of  Von  Harnack  is  true;  for  in  that  line  of  develop- 
ment of  theology  which  runs  from  Augustine  through  the  Refor- 
mation to  the  Reformed  Churches,  Paulinism  may  fairly  be 
regarded  as  a  true  foundation.  But  in  the  second  place,  even 
if  Von  Harnack's  dictum  were  true,  the  importance  of  Paul's 
influence  would  not  be  destroyed.  A  ferment  is  sometimes  as 
important  as  a  foundation.  As  Von  Harnack  himself  says, 
"the  Pauline  reactions  mark  the  critical  epochs  of  theology 
and  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  The  history  of  doctrine  could  be 
written  as  a  history  of  the  Pauline  reactions  in  the  Church."  3 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  influence  of  Paul  upon  the  entire  life 
of  the  Church  is  simply  measureless.  Who  can  measure  the 
influence  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Romans? 

The  influence  of  Paul  was  also  exerted,  however,  in  his 
own  lifetime,  by  his  spoken  words  as  well  as  by  his  letters. 
To  estimate  the  full  extent  of  that  influence  one  would  have 
to  write  the  entire  history  of  early  Christianity.  It  may  be 
well,  however,  .to  consider  briefly  at  least  one  outstanding 
aspect  of  that  influence — an  aspect  which  must  appeal  even 
to  the  most  unsympathetic  observer.  The  Christian  move- 
ment began  in  the  midst  of  a  very  peculiar  people ;  in  35  A.D. 
it  would  have  appeared  to  a  superficial  observer  to  be  a  Jewish 
sect.  Thirty  years  later  it  was  plainly  a  world  religion. 

'Compare  "Jesus  and  Paul,"  in  Biblical  and  Theological  Studies  by 
Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  1912,  pp. 
553  f . 

'Harnack,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  4te  Aufl.,  i,  1909,  p.  155. 
(English  Translation,  History  of  Dogma,  i,  1895,  p.  136.) 

'Harnack,  loc.  cit. 


8  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

True,  the  number  of  its  adherents  was  still  small.  But  the 
really  important  steps  had  been  taken.  The  conquest  of  the 
world  was  now  a  mere  matter  of  time.  This  establishment  of 
Christianity  as  a  world  religion,  to  almost  as  great  an  extent 
as  any  great  historical  movement  can  be  ascribed  to  one  man, 
was  the  work  of  Paul. 

This  assertion  needs  to  be  defended  against  various  ob- 
jections, and  at  the  same  time  freed  from  misinterpretations 
and  exaggerations. 

In  the  first  place,  it  might  be  said,  the  Gentile  mission 
of  Paul  was  really  only  a  part  of  a  mighty  historical  process— 
the  march  of  the  oriental  religions  throughout  the  western 
world.  Christianity  was  not  the  only  religion  which  was 
filling  the  void  left  by  the  decay  of  the  native  religions  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  The  Phrygian  religion  of  Cybele  had  been 
established  officially  at  Rome  since  204  B.C.,  and  after  leading  a 
somewhat  secluded  and  confined  existence  for  several  centuries, 
was  at  the  time  of  Paul  beginning  to  make  its  influence  felt  in 
the  life  of  the  capital.  The  Greco-Egyptian  religion  of  Isis 
was  preparing  for  the  triumphal  march  which  it  began  in 
earnest  in  the  second  century.  The  Persian  religion  of  Mithras 
was  destined  to  share  with  Isis  the  possession  of  a  large  part 
of  the  Greco-Roman  world.  Was  not  the  Christianity  of 
Paul  merely  one  division  of  a  mighty  army  which  would  have 
conquered  even  without  his  help? 

With  regard  to  this  objection  a  number  of  things  may  be 
said.  In  the  first  place,  the  apostle  Paul,  as  over  against  the 
priests  of  Isis  and  of  Cybele,  has  perhaps  at  least  the  merit 
of  priority;  the  really  serious  attempt  at  world-conquest  was 
made  by  those  religions  (and  still  more  clearly  by  the  religion 
of  Mithras)  only  after  the  time  of  Paul.  In  the  second 
place,  the  question  may  well  be  asked  whether  it  is  at  all  justi- 
fiable to  class  the  Christianity  of  Paul  along  with  those  other 
cults  under  the  head  of  Hellenized  oriental  religion.  This 
question  will  form  the  subject  of  a  considerable  part  of  the 
discussion  which  follows,  and  it  will  be  answered  with  an  em- 
phatic negative.  The  Christianity  of  Paul  will  be  found  to  be 
totally  different  from  the  oriental  religions.  The  threat  of 
conquest  made  by  those  religions,  therefore,  only  places  in 
sharper  relief  the  achievement  of  Paul,  by  showing  the  calami- 
ties from  which  the  world  was  saved  by  his  energetic  mission. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

If  except  for  the  Pauline  mission  the  world  would  have  become 
devoted  to  Isis  or  Mithras,  then  Paul  was  certainly  one  of  the 
supreme  benefactors  of  the  human  race. 

Even  apart  from  any  detailed  investigation,  however,  one 
difference  between  the  religion  of  Paul  and  the  oriental  religions 
is  perfectly  obvious.  The  oriental  religions  were  tolerant  of 
other  faiths;  the  religion  of  Paul,  like  the  ancient  religion  of 
Israel,  demanded  an  absolutely  exclusive  devotion.  A  man 
could  become  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  Isis  or  Mithras 
without  at  all  giving  up  his  former  beliefs ;  but  if  he  were  to 
be  received  into  the  Church,  according  to  the  preaching  of 
Paul,  he  must  forsake  all  other  Saviours  for  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  difference  places  the  achievement  of  Paul  upon 
an  entirely  different  plane  from  the  successes  of  the  oriental 
mystery  religions.  It  was  one  thing  to  offer  a  new  faith  and 
a  new  cult  as  simply  one  additional  way  of  obtaining  contact 
with  the  Divine,  and  it  was  another  thing,  and  a  far  more 
difficult  thing  (and  in  the  ancient  world  outside  of  Israel  an 
unheard-of  thing),  to  require  a  man  to  renounce  all  existing 
religious  beliefs  and  practices  in  order  to  place  his  whole  re- 
liance upon  a  single  Saviour.  Amid  the  prevailing  syncretism 
of  the  Greco-Roman  world,  the  religion  of  Paul,  with  the 
religion  of  Israel,  stands  absolutely  alone.  The  successes  of 
the  oriental  religions,  therefore,  only  place  in  clearer  light 
the  uniqueness  of  the  achievement  of  Paul.  They  do  indeed 
indicate  the  need  and  longing  of  the  ancient  world  for  re- 
demption; but  that  is  only  part  of  the  preparation  for  the 
coming  of  the  gospel  which  has  always  been  celebrated  by 
devout  Christians  as  part  of  the  divine  economy,  as  one  indica- 
tion that  "the  fullness  of  the  time"  was  come.  But  the  wide 
prevalence  of  the  need  does  not  at  all  detract  from  the  achieve- 
ment of  satisfying  the  need.  Paul's  way  of  satisfying  the  need, 
as  it  is  hoped  the  later  chapters  will  show,  was  unique ;  but  what 
should  now  be  noticed  is  that  the  way  of  Paul,  because  of  its 
exclusiveness,  was  at  least  far  more  difficult  than  that  of  any 
of  his  rivals  or  successors.  His  achievement  was  therefore  im- 
measurably greater  than  theirs. 

But  if  the  successes  of  the  oriental  religions  do  not  detract 
from  the  achievement  of  Paul,  what  shall  be  said  of  the  suc- 
cesses of  pre-Christian  Judaism?  It  must  always  be  remembered 
that  Judaism,  in  the  first  century,  was  an  active  missionary 


10  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

religion.  Even  Palestinian  Judaism  was  imbued  with  the  mis- 
sionary spirit ;  Jesus  said  to  the  Pharisees  that  they  compassed 
sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte.  The  Judaism  of  the  Dis- 
persion was  no  doubt  even  more  zealous  for  winning  adherents. 
The  numberless  synagogues  scattered  throughout  the  cities  of 
the  Greco-Roman  world  were  not  attended,  as  Jewish  syna- 
gogues are  attended  to-day,  only  by  Jews,  but  were  also  filled 
with  hosts  of  Gentiles,  some  of  whom  had  accepted  circumcision 
and  become  full  Jews,  but  others  of  whom,  forming  the  class 
called  in  the  Book  of  Acts  "God-fearers"  or  "God-worship- 
ers," had  accepted  the  monotheism  of  the  Jews  and  the  lofty 
morality  of  the  Old  Testament  without  definitely  uniting  them- 
selves with  the  people  of  Israel.  In  addition  to  this  propa- 
ganda in  the  synagogues,  an  elaborate  literary  propaganda, 
of  which  important  remnants  have  been  preserved,  helped  to 
carry  on  the  misionary  work.  The  question  therefore  arises 
whether  the  preaching  of  Paul  was  anything  more  than  a  con- 
tinuation, though  in  any  case  a  noteworthy  continuation,  of 
this  pre-Christian  Jewish  mission. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  longing  for  redemption 
which  is  attested  by  the  successes  of  the  oriental  religions,  an 
important  element  in  the  preparation  for  the  gospel  must  cer- 
tainly be  detected.  It  is  hard  to  exaggerate  the  service  which 
was  rendered  to  the  Pauline  mission  by  the  Jewish  synagogue. 
One  of  the  most  important  problems  for  every  missionary  is 
the  problem  of  gaining  a  hearing.  The  problem  may  be  solved 
in  various  ways.  Sometimes  the  missionary  may  hire  a  place 
of  meeting  and  advertise;  sometimes  he  may  talk  on  the  street 
corners  to  passers-by.  But  for  Paul  the  problem  was  solved. 
All  that  he  needed  to  do  was  to  enter  the  synagogue  and 
exercise  the  privilege  of  speaking,  which  was  accorded  with 
remarkable  liberality  to  visiting  teachers.  In  the  synagogue, 
moreover,  Paul  found  an  audience  not  only  of  Jews  but  also 
of  Gentiles;  everywhere  the  "God- fearers"  were  to  be  found. 
These  Gentile  attendants  upon  the  synagogues  formed  not 
only  an  audience  but  a  picked  audience;  they  were  just  the 
class  of  persons  who  were  most  likely  to  be  won  by  the  gospel 
preaching.  In  their  case  much  of  the  preliminary  work  had 
been  accomplished ;  they  were  already  acquainted  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  one  true  God;  they  had  already,  through  the 
lofty  ethical  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  come  to  connect 
religion  with  morality  in  a  way  which  is  to  us  matter-of-course 


INTRODUCTION  11 

but  was  very  exceptional  in  the  ancient  world.  Where,  as  in 
the  market-place  at  Athens,  Paul  had  to  begin  at  the  very 
beginning,  without  presupposing  this  previous  instruction  on 
the  part  of  his  hearers,  his  task  was  rendered  far  more  difficult. 
Undoubtedly,  in  the  case  of  many  of  his  converts  he  did 
have  to  begin  in  that  way ;  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  for  example,  presupposes,  perhaps,  converts  who  turned 
directly  from  idols  to  serve  the  living  and  true  God.  But 
even  in  such  cases  the  God-fearers  formed  a  nucleus ;  their 
manifold  social  relationships  provided  points  of  contact  with 
the  rest  of  the  Gentile  population.  The  debt  which  the  Chris- 
tian Church  owes  to  the  Jewish  synagogue  is  simply  measure- 
less. 

This  acknowledgment,  however,  does  not  mean  that  the 
Pauline  mission  was  only  a  continuation  of  the  pre-Christian 
missionary  activity  of  the  Jews.  On  the  contrary,  the  very 
earnestness  of  the  effort  made  by  the  Jews  to  convert  their 
Gentile  neighbors  serves  to  demonstrate  all  the  more  clearly 
the  hopelessness  of  their  task.  One  thing  that  was  funda- 
mental in  the  religion  of  the  Jews  was  its  exclusiveness.  The 
people  of  Israel,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  was  the 
chosen  people  of  God;  the  notion  of  a  covenant  between  God 
and  His  chosen  people  was  absolutely  central  in  all  ages  of  the 
Jewish  Church.  The  Old  Testament  did  indeed  clearly  provide 
a  method  by  which  strangers  could  be  received  into  the  cove- 
nant ;  they  could  be  received  whenever,  by  becoming  circumcised 
and  undertaking  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  they  should 
relinquish  their  own  nationality  and  become  part  of  the  na- 
tion of  Israel.  But  this  method  seemed  hopelessly  burdensome. 
Even  before  the  time  of  Paul  it  had  become  evident  that  the 
Gentile  world  as  a  whole  would  never  submit  to  such  terms. 
The  terms  were  therefore  sometimes  relaxed.  Covenant  privi- 
leges were  offered  by  individual  Jewish  teachers  to  individual 
Gentiles  without  requiring  what  was  most  offensive,  like  circum- 
cision ;  merit  was  sought  by  some  of  the  Gentiles  by  observance 
of  only  certain  parts  of  the  Law,  such  as  the  requirements 
about  the  Sabbath  or  the  provisions  about  food.  Apparently 
widespread  also  was  the  attitude  of  those  persons  who  seem  to 
have  accepted  what  may  be  called  the  spiritual,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  ceremonial,  aspects  of  Judaism.  But  all 
such  compromises  were  affected  by  a  deadly  weakness.  The 
strict  requirements  of  the  Law  were  set  forth  plainly  in  the 


12  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Old  Testament.  To  cast  them  aside,  in  the  interests  of  mis- 
sionary activity,  meant  a  sacrifice  of  principle  to  practice; 
it  meant  a  sacrifice  of  the  zeal  and  the  good  conscience  of  the 
missionaries  and  of  the  true  satisfaction  of  the  converts.  One 
of  the  chief  attractions  of  Judaism  to  the  world  of  that  day 
was  the  possession  of  an  ancient  and  authoritative  Book ;  the 
world  was  eagerly  searching  for  authority  in  religion.  Yet 
if  the  privileges  of  the  Old  Testament  were  to  be  secured,  the 
authority  of  the  Book  had  to  be  set  aside.  The  character 
of  a  national  religion  was  therefore  too  indelibly  stamped  upon 
the  religion  of  Israel;  the  Gentile  converts  could  at  best  only 
be  admitted  into  an  outer  circle  around  the  true  household 
of  God.  What  pre-Christian  Judaism  had  to  offer  was  there- 
fore obviously  insufficient.  Perhaps  the  tide  of  the  Jewish 
mission  had  already  begun  to  ebb  before  the  time  of  Paul; 
perhaps  the  process  of  the  withdrawal  of  Judaism  into  its 
age-long  seclusion  had  already  begun.  Undoubtedly  that 
process  was  hastened  by  the  rivalry  of  Christianity,  which  of- 
fered far  more  than  Judaism  had  offered  and  offered  it  on  far 
more  acceptable  terms.  But  the  process  sooner  or  later  would 
inevitably  have  made  itself  felt.  Whether  or  not  Renan  was 
correct  in  supposing  that  had  it  not  been  for  Christianity 
the  world  would  have  been  Mithraic,  one  thing  is  certain — the 
world  apart  from  Christianity  would  never  have  become  Jewish. 
But  was  not  the  preaching  of  Paul  itself  one  manifesta- 
tion of  that  liberalizing  tendency  among  the  Jews  to  which 
allusion  has  just  been  made  and  of  which  the  powerlessness 
has  just  been  asserted?  Was  not  the  attitude  of  Paul  in 
remitting  the  requirement  of  circumcision,  while  he  retained 
the  moral  and  spiritual  part  of  the  Old  Testament  Law — 
especially  if,  as  the  Book  of  Acts  asserts,  he  assented  upon  oc- 
casion  to  the  imposition  of  certain  of  the  less  burdensome 
parts  even  of  the  ceremonial  Law — very  similar  to  the  ac- 
tion of  a  teacher  like  that  Ananias  who  was  willing  to  re- 
ceive king  Izates  of  Adiabene  without  requiring  him  to  be 
circumcised?  These  questions  in  recent  years  have  occasion- 
ally been  answered  in  the  affirmative,  especially  by  Kirsopp 
Lake.1  But  despite  the  plausibility  of  Lake's  representation 

1  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  pp.  16-28,  especially  p.  24.  Com- 
pare Lake  and  Jackson,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  Part  I,  vol.  i,  1920, 
p.  166. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

he  has  thereby  introduced  a  root  error  into  his  reconstruction 
of  the  apostolic  age.  For  whatever  the  teaching  of  Paul  was, 
it  certainly  was  not  "liberalism."  The  background  of  Paul 
is  not  to  be  sought  in  liberal  Judaism,  but  in  the  strictest 
sect  of  the  Pharisees.  And  Paul's  remission  of  the  requirement 
of  circumcision  was  similar  only  in  form,  at  the  most,  to 
the  action  of  the  Ananias  who  has  just  been  mentioned.  In 
motive  and  in  principle  it  was  diametrically  opposite.  Gen- 
tile freedom  according  to  Paul  was  not  something  permitted; 
it  was  something  absolutely  required.  And  it  was  required 
just  by  the  strictest  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  Law. 
If  Paul  had  been  a  liberal  Jew,  he  would  never  have  been  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles;  for  he  would  never  have  developed 
his  doctrine  of  the  Cross.  Gentile  freedom,  in  other  words, 
was  not,  according  to  Paul,  a  relaxing  of  strict  requirements 
in  the  interests  of  practical  missionary  work;  it  was  a  matter 
of  principle.  For  the  first  time  the  religion  of  Israel  could 
go  forth  (or  rather  was  compelled  to  go  forth)  with  a  really 
good  conscience  to  the  spiritual  conquest  of  the  world. 

Thus  the  Pauline  mission  was  not  merely  one  manifestation 
of  the  progress  of  oriental  religion,  and  it  was  not  merely  a 
continuation  of  the  pre-Christian  missi9n  of  the  Jews;  it  was 
something  new.  But  if  it  was  new  in  comparison  with  what  was 
outside  of  Christianity,  was  it  not  anticipated  within  Chris- 
tianity itself?  Was  it  not  anticipated  by  the  Founder  of 
Christianity,  by  Jesus  Himself? 

At  this  point  careful  definition  is  necessary.  If  all  that 
is  meant  is  that  the  Gentile  mission  of  Paul  was  founded  alto- 
gether upon  Jesus,  then  there  ought  to  be  no  dispute.  A  differ- 
ent view,  which  makes  Paul  rather  than  Jesus  the  true  founder 
of  Christianity,  will  be  combated  in  the  following  pagfes. 
Paul  himself,  at  any  rate,  bases  his  doctrine  of  Gentile  free- 
dom altogether  upon  Jesus.  But  he  bases  it  upon  what  Jesus 
had  done,  not  upon  what  Jesus,  at  least  during  His  earthly 
life,  had  said.  The  true  state  of  the  case  may  therefore  be  that 
Jesus  by  His  redeeming  work  really  made  possible  the  Gentile 
mission,  but  that  the  discovery  of  the  true  significance  of  that 
work  was  left  to  Paul.  The  achievement  of  Paul,  whether  it 
be  regarded  as  a  discovery  made  by  him  or  a  divine  revelation 
made  to  him,  would  thus  remain  intact.  What  did  Jesus 
say  or  imply,  during  His  earthly  ministry,  about  the  universal- 


14  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

ism  of  the  gospel?  Did  He  make  superfluous  the  teaching  of 
Paul? 

The  latter  question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative;  at- 
tempts at  finding,  clearly  expressed,  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
the  full  doctrine  of  Gentile  freedom  have  failed.  It  is  often 
said  that  Jesus,  though  He  addressed  His  teaching  to  Jews, 
addressed  it  to  them  not  as  Jews  but  as  men.  But  the  dis- 
covery of  that  fact  (whenever  it  was  made)  was  no  mean 
achievement.  Certainly  it  was  not  made  by  the  modern  writers 
who  lightly  repeat  the  assertion,  for  they  have  the  benefit  of 
the  teaching  of  Paul  and  of  nineteen  centuries  of  Christian 
experience  based  upon  that  teaching.  Even  if  Jesus  did  ad- 
dress not  the  Jew  as  a  Jew,  but  the  man  in  the  Jew,  the  achieve- 
ment of  Paul  in  the  establishment  of  the  Gentile  Church  was 
not  thereby  made  a  matter  of  course.  The  plain  man  would 
be  more  likely  to  stick  at  the  fact  that  however  Jesus  addressed 
the  Jew  He  did  address  the  Jew  and  not  the  Gentile,  and  He 
commanded  His  disciples  to  do  the  same.  Instances  in  which 
He  extended  His  ministry  to  Gentiles  are  expressly  designated 
in  the  Gospels  as  exceptional. 

But  did  He  not  definitely  command  His  disciples  to  engage 
in  the  Gentile  work  after  His  departure?  Certainly  He  did 
not  do  so  according  to  the  modern  critical  view  of  the  Gospels. 
But  even  if  the  great  commission  of  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20  be 
accepted  as  an  utterance  of  Jesus,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that 
the  question  of  Gentile  liberty  was  settled.  In  the  great  com- 
mission, the  apostles  are  commanded  to  make  disciples  of  all 
the  nations.  But  on  what  terms  were  the  new  disciples  to  be 
received?  There  was  nothing  startling,  from  the  Jewish  point 
of  view,  in  winning  Gentile  converts;  the  non-Christian  Jews, 
as  has  just  been  observed,  were  busily  engaged  in  doing  that. 
The  only  difficulty  arose  when  the  terms  of  reception  of  the  new 
converts  were  changed.  Were  the  new  converts  to  be  received 
as  disciples  of  Jesus  without  being  circumcised  and  thus  with- 
out becoming  members  of  the  covenant  people  of  God?  The 
great  commission  does  not  answer  that  question.  It  does  in- 
deed mention  only  baptism  and  not  circumcision.  But  might 
that  not  be  because  circumcision,  for  those  who  were  to  enter 
into  God's  people,  was  a  matter  of  course? 

In  a  number  of  His  utterances,  it  is  true,  Jesus  did 
adopt  an  attitude  toward  the  ceremonial  Law,  at  least  toward 


INTRODUCTION  15 

the  interpretation  of  it  by  the  scribes,  very  different  from 
what  was  customary  in  the  Judaism  of  His  day.  "There  is 
nothing  from  without  the  man,"  He  said,  "that  entering  into 
him  can  defile  him :  but  the  things  which  come  out  of  him,  those 
are  they  that  defile  the  man"  (Mark  vii.  15).  No  doubt  these 
words  were  revolutionary  in  their  ultimate  implications.  But 
there  is  no  evidence  that  they  resulted  in  revolutionary  prac- 
tice on  the  part  of  Jesus.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  definite 
reason  to  suppose  that  He  observed  the  ceremonial  Law  as  it 
was  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  definite  utterances 
of  His  in  support  of  the  authority  of  the  Law  have  been  pre- 
served in  the  Gospels. 

The  disciples,  therefore,  were  not  obviously  unfaithful 
to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  if  after  He  had  been  taken  from  them 
they  continued  to  minister  only  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel.  If  He  had  told  them  to  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  He  had  not  told  them  upon  what  terms  the  disciples 
were  to  be  received  or  at  what  moment  of  time  the  specifically 
Gentile  work  should  begin.  Perhaps  the  divine  economy  re- 
quired that  Israel  should  first  be  brought  to  an  acknowledgment 
of  her  Lord,  or  at  least  her  obduracy  established  beyond  per- 
adventure,  in  accordance  with  the  mysterious  prophecy  of 
Jesus  in  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,1  before  the 
Gentiles  should  be  gathered  in.  At  any  rate,  there  is  evidence 
that  whatever  was  revolutionary  in  the  life  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  was  less  evident  among  His  disciples,  in  the  early  days 
of  the  Jerusalem  Church.  Even  the  Pharisees,  and  at  any  rate 
the  people  as  a  whole,  could  find  nothing  to  object  to  in  the 
attitude  of  the  apostles  and  their  followers.  The  disciples 
continued  to  observe  the  Jewish  fasts  and  feasts.  Outwardly 
they  were  simply  loyal  Jews.  Evidently  Gentile  freedom,  and 
the  abolition  of  special  Jewish  privileges,  had  not  been  clearly 
established  by  the  words  of  the  Master.  There  was  therefore 
still  need  for  the  epoch-making  work  of  Paul. 

But  if  the  achievement  of  Paul  was  not  clearly  antici- 
pated in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself,  was  it  not  anticipated 
or  at  any  rate  shared  by  others  in  the  Church?  According  to 

1Matt.  xxi.  41,  and  parallels.  This  verse  can  perhaps  hardly  be  held  to 
refer  exclusively  to  the  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the  rulers;  it  seems  also  to 
apply  to  a  rejection  by  the  people  as  a  whole.  But  the  full  implications 
of  so  mysterious  an  utterance  may  well  have  been  lost  sight  of  in  the 
early  Jerusalem  Church. 


16  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  Book  of  Acts,  a  Gentile,  Cornelius,  and  his  household  were 
baptized,  without  requirement  of  circumcision,  by  Peter  him- 
self, the  leader  of  the  original  apostles ;  and  a  free  attitude  to- 
ward the  Temple  and  the  Law  was  adopted  by  Stephen.  The 
latter  instance,  at  least,  has  ordinarily  been  accepted  as  his- 
torical by  modern  criticism.  Even  in  founding  the  churches 
which  are  usually  designated  as  Pauline,  moreover,  Barnabas 
and  Silas  and  others  had  an  important  part ;  and  in  the  found- 
ing of  many  churches  Paul  himself  was  not  concerned.  It  is  an 
interesting  fact  that  of  the  churches  in  the  three  most  im- 
portant cities  of  the  Roman  Empire  not  one  was  founded  by 
Paul.  The  Church  at  Alexandria  does  not  appear  upon  the 
pages  of  the  New  Testament;  the  Church  at  Rome  appears 
fully  formed  when  Paul  was  only  preparing  for  his  coming 
by  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  the  Church  at  Antioch,  at  least 
in  its  Gentile  form,  was  founded  by  certain  unnamed  Jews  of 
Cyprus  and  Cyrene.  Evidently,  therefore,  Paul  was  not  the 
only  missionary  who  carried  the  gospel  to  the  Gentile  world. 
If  the  Gentile  work  consisted  merely  in  the  geographical  ex- 
tension of  the  frontiers  of  the  Church,  then  Paul  did  not  by 
any  means  stand  alone. 

Even  in  the  geographical  sphere,  however,  his  achievements 
must  not  be  underestimated ;  even  in  that  sphere  he  labored  far 
more  abundantly  than  any  other  one  man.  His  desire  to  plant 
the  gospel  in  places  where  it  had  never  been  heard  led  him 
into  an  adventurous  life  which  may  well  excite  the  astonishment 
of  the  modern  man.  The  catalogue  of  hardships  which  Paul 
himself  gives  incidentally  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians shows  that  the  Book  of  Acts  has  been  very  conserva- 
tive in  its  account  of  the  hardships  and  perils  which  the  apostle 
endured;  evidently  the  half  has  not  been  told.  The  results, 
moreover,  were  commensurate  with  the  hardships  that  they 
cost.  Despite  the  labors  of  others,  it  was  Paul  who  planted 
the  gospel  in  a  real  chain  of  the  great  cities;  it  was  he  who 
conceived  most  clearly  the  thought  of  a  mighty  Church  uni- 
versal which  should  embrace  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  barbarian, 
Scythian,  bond  and  free  in  a  common  faith  and  a  common 
life.  When  he  addressed  himself  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  in  a 
tone  of  authority,  as  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  who  was 
ready  to  preach  the  gospel  to  those  who  were  at  Rome  also,  his 
lofty  claim  was  supported,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Church  at 


INTRODUCTION  17 

Rome  had  itself  been  founded  by  others,  by  the  mere  extent  of 
his  labors. 

The  really  distinctive  achievement  of  Paul,  however,  does 
not  consist  in  the  mere  geographical  extension  of  the  frontiers 
of  the  Church,  important  as  that  work  was ;  it  lies  in  a  totally 
different  sphere — in  the  hidden  realm  of  thought.1  What  was 
really  standing  in  the  way  of  the  Gentile  mission  was  not  the 
physical  barriers  presented  by  sea  and  mountain,  it  was  rather 
the  great  barrier  of  religious  principle.  Particularism  was 
written  plain  upon  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament ;  in  emphatic 
language  the  Scriptures  imposed  upon  the  true  Israelite  the 
duty  of  separateness  from  the  Gentile  world.  Gentiles  might 
indeed  be  brought  in,  but  only  when  they  acknowledged  the 
prerogatives  of  Israel  and  united  themselves  with  the  Jewish 
nation.  If  premonitions  of  a  different  doctrine  were  to  be 
found,  they  were  couched  in  the  mysterious  language  of 
prophecy;  what  seemed  to  be  fundamental  for  the  present 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  special  covenant  between  Jehovah  and 
His  chosen  people. 

This  particularism  of  the  Old  Testament  might  have  been 
overcome  by  practical  considerations,  especially  by  the  con- 
sideration that  since  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Gentiles  would 
never  accept  circumcision  and  submit  to  the  Law  the  only  way 
to  carry  on  the  broader  work  was  quietly  to  keep  the  more 
burdensome  requirements  of  the  Law  in  abeyance.  This  method 
would  have  been  the  method  of  "liberalism."  And  it  would  have 
been  utterly  futile.  It  would  have  meant  an  irreparable  injury 
to  the  religious  conscience;  it  would  have  sacrificed  the  good 
conscience  of  the  missionary  and  the  authoritativeness  of  his 
proclamation.  Liberalism  would  never  have  conquered  the 
world. 

Fortunately  liberalism  was  not  the  method  of  Paul.  Paul 
was  not  a  practical  Christian  who  regarded  life  as  superior 
to  doctrine,  and  practice  as  superior  to  principle.  On  the 
contrary,  he  overcame  the  principle  of  Jewish  particularism 
in  the  only  way  in  which  it  could  be  overcome;  he  overcame 
principle  by  principle.  It  was  not  Paul  the  practical  mis- 
sionary, but  Paul  the  theologian,  who  was  the  real  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles. 

1  For  what  follows,  compare  the  article  cited  in  Biblical  and  Theological 
Studies,  pp.  555-557. 


18  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

In  his  theology  he  avoided  certain  errors  which  lay  near 
at  hand.  He  avoided  the  error  of  Marcion,  who  in  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  combated  Jewish  particularism  by  repre- 
senting the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  as  evil  and 
as  the  work  of  a  being  hostile  to  the  good  God.  That  error 
would  have  deprived  the  Church  of  the  prestige  which  it  derived 
from  the  possession  of  an  ancient  and  authoritative  Book; 
as  a  merely  new  religion  Christianity  never  could  have  ap- 
pealed to  the  Gentile  world.  Paul  avoided  also  the  error  of 
the  so-called  "Epistle  of  Barnabas,"  which,  while  it  accepted 
the  Old  Testament,  rejected  the  entire  Jewish  interpretation 
of  it;  the  Old  Testament  Law,  according  to  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  was  never  intended  to  require  literal  sacrifices  and 
circumcision,  in  the  way  in  which  it  was  interpreted  by  the 
Jews.  That  error,  also,  would  have  been  disastrous;  it  would 
have  introduced  such  boundless  absurdity  into  the  Christian 
use  of  the  Scriptures  that  all  truth  and  soberness  would  have 
fled. 

Avoiding  all  such  errors,  Paul  was  able  with  a  perfectly 
good  conscience  to  accept  the  priceless  support  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  in  his  missionary  work  while  at  the  same 
time  he  rejected  for  his  Gentile  converts  the  ceremonial  re- 
quirements which  the  Old  Testament  imposed.  The  solution  of 
the  problem  is  set  forth  clearly  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians.  The  Old  Testament  Law,  according  to  Paul,  was  truly 
authoritative  and  truly  divine.  But  it  was  temporary;  it  was 
authoritative  only  until  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  should 
come.  It  was  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  the  Jews  to  Christ; 
and  (such  is  the  implication,  according  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans)  it  could  also  be  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  every  one 
to  Christ,  since  it  was  intended  to  produce  the  necessary  con- 
sciousness of  sin. 

This  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  only  prac- 
tical solution  of  the  difficulty.  But  Paul  did  not  adopt  it 
because  it  was  practical;  he  adopted  it  because  it  was  true. 
It  never  occurred  to  him  to  hold  principle  in  abeyance  even 
for  the  welfare  of  the  souls  of  men.  The  deadening  blight  of 
pragmatism  had  never  fallen  upon  his  soul. 

The  Pauline  grounding  of  the  Gentile  mission  is  not  to 
be  limited,  however,  to  his  specific  answer  to  the  question, 


INTRODUCTION  19 

"What  then  is  the  law?"  It  extends  rather  to  his  entire  un- 
folding of  the  significance  of  the  Cross  of  Christ.  He  ex- 
hibited the  temporary  character  of  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation by  showing  that  a  new  era  had  begun,  by  exhibiting 
positively  the  epoch-making  significance  of  the  Cross. 

At  this  point  undoubtedly  he  had  precursors.  The  sig- 
nificance of  the  Cross  of  Christ  was  by  no  means  entirely 
unknown  to  those  who  had  been  disciples  before  him;  he  him- 
self places  the  assertion  that  Christ  "died  for  our  sins  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures"  as  one  of  the  things  that  he  had  "re- 
ceived." But  unless  all  indications  fail  Paul  did  bring  an 
unparalleled  enrichment  of  the  understanding  of  the  Cross. 
For  the  first  time  the  death  of  Christ  was  viewed  in  its  full 
historical  and  logical  relationships.  And  thereby  Gentile  free- 
dom, and  the  freedom  of  the  entire  Christian  Church  for  all 
time,  was  assured. 

Inwardly,  indeed,  the  early  Jerusalem  disciples  were  al- 
ready free  from  the  Law;  they  were  really  trusting  for  their 
salvation  not  to  their  observance  of  the  Law  but  to  what 
Christ  had  done  for  them.  But  apparently  they  did  not  fully 
know  that  they  were  free ;  or  rather  they  did  not  know  exactly 
why  they  were  free.  The  case  of  Cornelius,  according  to  the 
Book  of  Acts,  was  exceptional;  Cornelius  had  been  received 
into  the  Church  without  being  circumcised,  but  only  by  direct 
command  of  the  Spirit.  Similar  direct  and  unexplained  guid- 
ance was  apparently  to  be  waited  for  if  the  case  was  to  be 
repeated.  Even  Stephen  had  not  really  advocated  the  imme- 
diate abolition  of  the  Temple  or  the  abandonment  of  Jewish 
prerogatives  in  the  presence  of  Gentiles. 

The  freedom  of  the  early  Jerusalem  Church,  in  other 
words,  was  not  fully  grounded  in  a  comprehensive  view 
of  the  meaning  of  Jesus'  work.  Such  freedom  could  not 
be  permanent.  It  was  open  to  argumentative  attacks,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  such  attacks  were  not  long  absent.  The 
very  life  of  the  Gentile  mission  at  Antioch  was  threatened 
by  the  Judaizers  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem  and  said, 
"Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye 
cannot  be  saved."  Practical  considerations,  considerations 
of  church  polity,  were  quite  powerless  before  such  attacks; 
freedom  was  held  by  but  a  precarious  tenure  until  its  under- 


20  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

lying  principles  were  established.  Christianity,  in  other 
words,  could  not  live  without  theology.  And  the  first  great 
Christian  theologian  was  Paul. 

It  was  Paul,  then,  who  established  the  principles  of  the 
Gentile  mission.  Others  labored  in  detail,  but  it  was  he  who 
was  at  the  heart  of  the  movement.  It  was  he,  far  more  than 
any  other  one  man,  who  carried  the  gospel  out  from  Judaism, 
into  the  Gentile  world. 

The  importance  of  the  achievement  must  be  apparent  to 
every  historian,  no  matter  how  unsympathetic  his  attitude 
toward  the  content  of  Christianity  may  be.  The  modern  Euro- 
pean world,  what  may  be  called  "western  civilization,"  is 
descended  from  the  civilization  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Our 
languages  are  either  derived  directly  from  the  Latin,  or  at  any 
rate  connected  with  the  same  great  family.  Our  literature 
and  art  are  inspired  by  the  great  classical  models.  Our  law 
and  government  have  never  been  independent  of  the  principles 
enunciated  by  the  statesmen  of  Greece,  and  put  into  practice 
by  the  statesmen  of  Rome.  Our  philosophies  are  obliged  to 
return  ever  anew  to  the  questions  which  were  put,  if  not  an- 
swered, by  Plato  and  Aristotle. 

Yet  there  has  entered  into  this  current  of  Indo-European 
civilization  an  element  from  a  very  diverse  and  very  unexpected 
source.  How  comes  it  that  a  thoroughly  Semitic  book  like  the 
Bible  has  been  accorded  a  place  in  medieval  and  modern  life 
to  which  the  glories  of  Greek  literature  can  never  by  any 
possibility  aspire?  How  comes  it  that  the  words  of  that  book 
have  not  only  made  political  history — moved  armies  and  built 
empires — but  also  have  entered  into  the  very  fabric  of  men's 
souls?  The  intrinsic  value  of  the  Book  would  not  alone  have 
been  sufficient  to  break  down  the  barriers  which  opposed  its 
acceptance  by  the  Indo-European  race.  The  race  from  which 
the  Bible  came  was  despised  in  ancient  times  and  it  is  despised 
to-day.  How  comes  it  then  that  a  product  of  that  race  has 
been  granted  such  boundless  influence?  How  comes  it  that  the 
barriers  which  have  always  separated  Jew  from  Gentile,  Semite 
from  Aryan,  have  at  one  point  been  broken  through,  so  that 
the  current  of  Semitic  life  has  been  allowed  to  flow  unchecked 
over  the  rich  fields  of  our  modern  civilization? 

The  answer  to  these  questions,  to  the  large  extent  which 
the  preceding  outline  has  attempted  to  define,  must  be  sought 


INTRODUCTION  21 

in  the  inner  life  of  a  Jew  of  Tarsus.  In  dealing  with  the  apostle 
Paul  we  are  dealing  with  one  of  the  moving  factors  of  the 
world's  history. 

That  conclusion  might  at  first  sight  seem  to  affect  un- 
favorably the  special  use  to  which  it  is  proposed,  in  the  pres- 
ent discussion,  to  put  the  examination  of  Paul.  The  more  im- 
portant Paul  was  as  a  man,  it  might  be  said,  the  less  important 
he  becomes  as  a  witness  to  the  origin  of  Christianity.  If  his 
mind  had  been  a  blank  tablet  prepared  to  receive  impressions, 
then  the  historian  could  be  sure  that  what  is  found  in  Paul's 
Epistles  about  Jesus  is  a  true  reflection  of  what  Jesus  really 
was.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  Paul  was  a  genius.  It  is  of  the 
nature  of  genius  to  be  creative.  May  not  what  Paul  says  about 
Jesus  and  the  origin  of  Christianity,  therefore,  be  no  mere  re- 
flection of  the  facts,  but  the  creation  of  his  own  mind? 

The  difficulty  is  not  so  serious  as  it  seems.  Genius  is  not 
incompatible  with  honesty — certainly  not  the  genius  of  Paul. 
When,  therefore,  Paul  sets  himself  to  give  information  about 
certain  plain  matters  of  fact  that  came  under  his  observa- 
tion, as  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Galatians,  there  are  not 
many  historians  who  are  inclined  to  refuse  him  credence.  But 
the  witness  of  Paul  depends  not  so  much  upon  details  as  upon 
the  total  fact  of  his  religious  life.  It  is  that  fact  which  is  to  be 
explained.  To  say  merely  that  Paul  was  a  genius  and  there- 
fore unaccountable  is  no  explanation.  Certainly  it  is  not  an 
explanation  satisfactory  to  modern  historians.  During  the 
progress  of  modern  criticism,  students  of  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity have  accepted  the  challenge  presented  by  the  fact  of 
Paul's  religious  life;  they  have  felt  obliged  to  account  for  the 
emergence  of  that  fact  at  just  the  point  when  it  actually  ap- 
peared. But  the  explanations  which  they  have  offered,  as  the 
following  discussion  may  show,  are  insufficient;  and  it  is  just 
the  greatness  of  Paul  for  which  the  explanations  do  not  ac- 
count. The  religion  of  Paul  is  too  large  a  building  to  have 
been  erected  upon  a  pin-point. 

Moreover,  the  greater  a  man  is,  the  wider  is  the  area  of 
his  contact  with  his  environment,  and  the  deeper  is  his  pene- 
tration into  the  spiritual  realm.  The  "man  in  the  street"  is 
not  so  good  an  observer  as  is  sometimes  supposed;  he  ob- 
serves only  what  lies  on  the  surface.  Paul,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  able  to  sound  the  depths.  It  is,  on  the  whole,  certainly 


22  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

no  disadvantage  to  the  student  of  early  Christianity  that  that 
particular  member  of  the  early  Church  whose  inner  life  stands 
clearest  in  the  light  of  history  was  no  mere  nonentity,  but  one 
of  the  commanding  figures  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

But  what,  in  essence,  is  the  fact  of  which  the  historical  im- 
plications are  here  to  be  studied?  What  was  the  religion  of 
Paul?  No  attempt  will  now  be  made  to  answer  the  question 
in  detail;  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  add  to  the  long  list  of 
expositions  of  the  Pauline  theology.  But  what  is  really  es- 
sential is  abundantly  plain,  and  may  be  put  in  a  word — the  re- 
ligion of  Paul  was  a  religion  of  redemption.  It  was  founded 
not  upon  what  had  always  been  true,  but  upon  what  had  recent- 
ly happened;  not  upon  right  ideas  about  God  and  His  rela- 
tions to  the  world,  but  upon  one  thing  that  God  had  done; 
not  upon  an  eternal  truth  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  but  upon 
the  fact  that  God  had  chosen  to  become  the  Father  of  those  who 
should  accept  the  redemption  oifered  by  Christ.  The  religion 
of  Paul  was  rooted  altogether  in  the  redeeming  work  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Jesus  for  Paul  was  primarily  not  a  Revealer,  but  a 
Saviour. 

The  character  of  Paulinism  as  a  redemptive  religion  in- 
volved a  certain  conception  of  the  Redeemer,  which  is  per- 
fectly plain  on  the  pages  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Jesus  Christ, 
Paul  believed,  was  a  heavenly  being;  Paul  placed  Him  clearly 
on  the  side  of  God  and  not  on  the  side  of  men.  "Not  by  man 
but  by  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says  at  the  beginning  of  Galatians, 
and  the  same  contrast  is  implied  everywhere  in  the  Epistles. 
This  heavenly  Redeemer  existed  before  His  earthly  life;  came 
then  to  earth,  where  He  lived  a  true  human  life  of  humiliation ; 
suffered  on  the  cross  for  the  sins  of  those  upon  whom  the  curse 
of  the  Law  justly  rested;  then  rose  again  from  the  dead  by  a 
mighty  act  of  God's  power;  and  is  present  always  with  His 
Church  through  His  Spirit. 

That  representation  has  become  familiar  to  the  devout 
Christian,  but  to  the  modern  historian  it  seems  very  strange. 
For  to  the  modern  historian,  on  the  basis  of  the  modern  view 
of  Jesus,  the  procedure  of  Paul  seems  to  be  nothing  else  than 
the  deification  by  Paul  of  a  man  who  had  lived  but  a  few  years 
before  and  had  died  a  shameful  death.1  It  is  not  necessary  to 

1  H.  J.  Holtzmann  (in  Protestantische  Monatshefte,  iv,  1900,  pp.  465f.,  and 
in  Christliche  Welt,  xxiv,  1910,  column  153)  admitted  that  for  the  rapid 
apotheosis  of  Jesus  as  it  is  attested  by  the  epistles  of  Paul  he  could 
cite  no  parallel  in  the  religious  history  of  the  race. 


INTRODUCTION  23 

argue  the  question  whether  in  Rom.  ix.  5  Paul  actually  applies 
the  term  "God"  to  Jesus — certainly  he  does  so  according  to 
the  only  natural  interpretation  of  his  .words  as  they  stand — 
what  is  really  important  is  that  everywhere  the  relationship 
in  which  Paul  stands  toward  Jesus  is  not  the  mere  relationship 
of  disciple  to  master,  but  is  a  truly  religious  relationship. 
Jesus  is  to  Paul  everywhere  the  object  of  religious  faith. 

That  fact  would  not  be  quite  so  surprising  if  Paul  had 
been  of  polytheistic  training,  if  he  had  grown  up  in  a  spiritual 
environment  where  the  distinction  between  divine  and  human 
was  being  broken  down.  Even  in  such  an  environment,  indeed, 
the  religion  of  Paul  would  have  been  quite  without  parallel.. 
The  deification  of  the  eastern  rulers  or  of  the  emperors  differs 
in  toto  from  the  Pauline  attitude  toward  Jesus.  It  differs  in 
seriousness  and  fervor;  above  all  it  differs  in  its  complete  lack 
of  exclusiveness.  The  lordship  of  the  ruler  admitted  freely, 
and  was  indeed  always  accompanied  by,  the  lordship  of  other 
gods;  the  lordship  of  Jesus,  in  the  religion  of  Paul,  was  ab- 
solutely exclusive.  For  Paul,  there  was  one  Lord  and  one  Lord 
only.  When  any  parallel  for  such  a  religious  relationship 
of  a  notable  man  to  one  of  his  contemporaries  with  whose  most 
intimate  friends  he  had  come  into  close  contact  can  be  cited 
in  the  religious  annals  of  the  race,  then  it  will  be  time  for  the 
historian  to  lose  his  wonder  at  the  phenomenon  of  Paul. 

But  the  wonder  of  the  historian  reaches  its  climax  when 
he  remembers  that  Paul  was  not  a  polytheist  or  a  pantheist, 
but  a  Jew,  to  whom  monotheism  was  the  very  breath  of  life.1 
The  Judaism  of  Paul's  day  was  certainly  nothing  if  not  mono- 
theistic. But  in  the  intensity  of  his  monotheism  Paul  was 
not  different  from  his  countrymen.  No  one  can  possibly  show 
a  deeper  scorn  for  the  many  gods  of  the  heathen  than  can 
Paul.  "For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,"  he  says, 
"whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many,  and 
lords  many,)  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of 
whom  are  all  things,  and  we  unto  him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."  (I  Cor.  viii. 
5,  6.)  Yet  it  was  this  monotheist  sprung  of  a  race  of  mono- 
theists,  who  stood  in  a  full  religious  relation  to  a  man  who  had 
died  but  a  few  years  before;  it  was  this  monotheist  who  desig- 
nated that  man,  as  a  matter  of  course,  by  the  supreme  religious 
term  "Lord,"  and  did  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  Him  the  passages 
1  Compare  R.  Seeberg,  Der  Ursprung  des  Christusglaubens,  1914,  pp.  If. 


24  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

in  the  Greek  Old  Testament  where  that  term  was  used  to  trans- 
late the  most  awful  name  of  the  God  of  Israel !  The  religion  of 
Paul  is  a  phenomenon  well  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  his- 
torian. 

In  recent  years  that  phenomenon  has  been  explained  in 
four  different  ways.  The  four  ways  have  not  always  been 
clearly  defined;  they  have  sometimes  entered  into  combination 
with  one  another.  But  they  are  logically  distinct,  and  to  a 
certain  extent  they  may  be  treated  separately. 

There  is  first  of  all  the  supernaturalistic  explanation,  which 
simply  accepts  at  its  face  value  what  Paul  presupposes  about 
Jesus.  According  to  this  explanation,  Jesus  was  really  a 
heavenly  being,  who  in  order  to  redeem  sinful  man  came  vol- 
untarily to  earth,  suffered  for  the  sins  of  others  on  the  cross, 
rose  from  the  dead,  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  from 
whence  He  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  If 
this  representation  be  correct,  then  there  is  really  nothing 
to  explain;  the  religious  attitude  of  Paul  toward  Jesus  was 
not  an  apotheosis  of  a  man,  but  recognition  as  divine  of  one 
who  really  was  divine. 

The  other  three  explanations  are  alike  in  that  they  all 
reject  supernaturalism,  they  all  deny  the  entrance  into  human 
.  history  of  any  creative  act  of  God,  unless  indeed  all  the 
course  of  nature  be  regarded  as  creative.  They  all  agree, 
therefore,  in  explaining  the  religion  of  Paul  as  a  phenomenon 
which  emerged  in  the  course  of  history  under  the  operation  of 
natural  causes. 

The  most  widespread  of  these  naturalistic  explanations 
of  the  religion  of  Paul  is  what  may  be  called  the  "liberal" 
view.  The  name  is  highly  unsatisfactory;  it  has  been  used 
and  misused  until  it  has  often  come  to  mean  almost  nothing. 
But  no  other  term  is  ready  to  hand.  "Ritschlian"  might  pos- 
sibly describe  the  phenomenon  that  is  meant,  but  that  term  is 
perhaps  too  narrow,  and  would  imply  a  degree  of  logical  con- 
nection with  the  Ritschlian  theology  which  would  not  fit  all 
forms  of  the  phenomenon.  The  best  that  can  be  done,  there- 
fore, is  to  define  the  term  "liberal"  in  a  narrower  way  than  is 
sometimes  customary  and  than  use  it  in  distinction  not  only 
from  traditional  and  supernaturalistic  views,  but  also  from 
various  "radical"  views,  which  will  demand  separate  considera- 
tion. 


INTRODUCTION  25 

The  numerous  forms  of  the  liberal  view  differ  from  other 
naturalistic  hypotheses  in  that  they  attribute  supreme  impor- 
tance in  the  formation  of  the  religion  of  Paul  to  the  influence 
of  the  real  historic  person,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  to  the 
experience  which  Paul  had  near  Damascus  when  he  thought 
he  saw  that  person  risen  from  the  dead.  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
according  to  the  liberal  view,  was  the  greatest  of  the  children 
of  men.  His  greatness  centered  in  His  consciousness  of  stand- 
ing toward  God  in  the  relation  of  son  to  Father.  That  con- 
sciousness of  sonship,  at  least  in  its  purity,  Jesus  discovered, 
was  not  shared  by  others.  Some  category  was  therefore  needed 
to  designate  the  uniqueness  of  His  sonship.  The  category 
which  He  adopted,  though  with  reluctance,  and  probably  to- 
ward the  end  of  His  ministry,  was  the  category  of  Messiahship. 
His  Messianic  consciousness  was  thus  not  fundamental  in  His 
conception  of  His  mission;  certainly  it  did  not  mean  that  He 
put  His  own  person  into  His  gospel.  He  urged  men,  not  to 
take  Him  .as  the  object  of  their  faith,  but  only  to  take  Him 
as  an  example  for  their  faith;  not  to  have  faith  in  Him,  but 
to  have  faith  in  God  like  His  faith.  Such  was  the  impression 
of  His  personality,  however,  that  after  His  death  the  love  and 
reverence  of  His  disciples  for  Him  not  only  induced  the 
hallucinations  in  which  they  thought  they  saw  Him  risen  from 
the  dead  but  also  led  them  to  attribute  to  His  person  a  kind 
of  religious  importance  which  He  had  never  claimed.  They 
began  to  make  Him  not  only  an  example  for  faith  but  also  the 
object  of  faith.  The  Messianic  element  in  His  life  began  now 
to  assume  an  importance  which  He  had  never  attributed  to  it ; 
the  disciples  began  to  ascribe  to  Him  divine  attributes.  This 
process  was  somewhat  hindered  in  the  case  of  His  intimate 
friends  by  the  fact  that  they  had  seen  Him  under  all  the 
limitations  of  ordinary  human  life.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  who  had  never  seen  Him,  the  process  of  deifica- 
tion could  go  on  unchecked.  What  was  fundamental,  however, 
even  for  Paul,  was  an  impression  of  the  real  person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth ;  that  impression  was  conveyed  to  Paul  in  various 
ways — especially  by  the  brave  and  pure  lives  of  Jesus'  disciples, 
which  had  impressed  him,  against  his  will,  even  when  he  was 
still  a  persecutor.  But  Paul  was  a  child  of  his  time.  He  was 
obliged,  therefore,  to  express  that  which  he  had  received  from 
Jesus  in  the  categories  that  were  ready  to  hand.  Those  cate- 


26  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

gories   as   applied   to  Jesus   constitute  the  Pauline  theology. 
Thus  Paul  was  really  the  truest  disciple  of  Jesus  in  the  depths 
of  his  inner  life,  but  his  theology  was  the  outer  and  perishable 
i  shell  for  the  precious  kernel.     His  theology  was  the  product 
;   of  his  time,  and  may  now  be  abandoned;  his  religion  was  de- 
rived from  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  is  a  permanent  possession 
of  tjie  human  race. 

Such  in  bare  outline  is  the  liberal  view  of  the  origin  of 
Paulinism  and  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  set  forth  in  so 
many  brilliant  treatises  that  no  one  may  be  singled  out  as 
clearly  representative.  Perhaps  Von  Harnack's  "What  is 
Christianity?"  *,  among  the  popular  expositions,  may  still  serve 
as  well  as  any  other.  The  liberal  view  of  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity seemed  at  one  time  likely  to  dominate  the  religious  life 
of  the  modern  world ;  it  found  expression  in  countless  sermons 
and  books  of  devotion  as  well  as  in  scientific  treatises.  Now, 
however,  there  are  some  indications  that  it  is  beginning  to  fall ; 
it  is  being  attacked  by  radicalism  of  various  kinds.  With 
some  of  these  attacks  it  will  not  now  be  worth  while  to  deal ;  it 
will  not  be  worth  while  to  deal  with  those  forms  of  radicalism 
which  reject  what  have  been  designated  as  the  two  starting- 
points  for  an  investigation  of  the  origin  of  Christianity — the 
historicity  of  Jesus  and  the  genuineness  of  the  major  epistles 
of  Paul.  These  hypotheses  are  some  of  them  interesting  on 
the  negative  side,  they  are  interesting  for  their  criticism  of 
the  dominant  liberal  view;  but  when  it  comes  to  their  own 
attempts  at  reconstruction  they  have  never  advanced  beyond 
the  purest  dilettantism.  Attention  will  now  be  confined  to 
the  work  of  historians  who  have  really  attempted  seriously  to 
grapple  with  the  historical  problems,  and  specifically  to  those 
•  who  have  given  attention  to  the  problem  of  Paul. 

Two  lines  of  explanation  have  been  followed  in  recent 
years  by  those  who  reject,  in  the  interest  of  more  radical  views, 
the  liberal  account  of  the  origin  of  Paulinism.  But  these  two 
lines  run  to  a  certain  point  together;  they  both  reject  the  liberal 
emphasis  upon  the  historic  person  of  Jesus  as  accounting  for 
the  origin  of  Paul's  religion.  The  criticism  of  the  customary 
view  was  put  sharply  by  W.  Wrede  in  19042,  when  he  declared 

1  Harnack,  Das   Wesen  des   Christentums,   1900.      (English  Translation, 
What  is  Christianity?,  1901.) 
a  Wrede,  Paulus,  1904.     (English  Translation,  Paul,  1907.) 


INTRODUCTION  27 

that  Paul  was  no  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  a  second  founder  of 
Christianity.  The  religious  life  of  Paul,  Wrede  insisted,  was 
not  really  derived  from  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  What  was  funda- 
mental for  Paul  was  not  the  example  of  Jesus,  but  His  redeem- 
ing work  as  embraced  in  the  death  and  resurrection,  which  were 
regarded  as  events  of  a  cosmic  significance.  The  theology  of 
paul — his  interpretation  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
— cannot,  therefore,  be  separated  from  his  religion ;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  in  connection  with  the  theology,  and  not  in  connec- 
tion with  any  impression  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  that  the 
fervor  of  Paul's  religious  life  runs  full  and  free.  Theology 
and  religion  in  Paul,  therefore,  must  stand  or  fall  together; 
if  one  was  derived  from  extra-Christian  sources,  probably  the 
other  must  be  so  derived  also.  And  such,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Wrede  concludes  is  the  case.  The  religion  of  Paul  is  not  based 
at  all  upon  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

Such,  in  true  import,  though  not  in  word  or  in  detail,  was 
the  startling  criticism  which  Wrede  directed  against  the  liberal 
account  of  the  origin  of  Paulinism.  He  had  really  only  made 
explicit  a  type  of  criticism  which  had  gradually  been  becoming 
inevitable  for  some  time  before.  Hence  the  importance  of  his 
little  book.  The  current  reconstruction  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity  had  produced  a  Jesus  and  a  Paul  who  really  had 
little  in  common  with  each  other.  Wrede,  in  his  incomparably 
succinct  and  incisive  way,  had  the  courage  to  say  so. 

But  if  Paulinism  was  not  derived  from  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
whence  was  it  derived?  Here  the  two  lines  of  radical  opinion 
begin  to  diverge.  According  to  Wrede,  who  was  supported  by 
M.  Bruckner,1  working  contemporaneously,  the  Pauline  con- 
ception of  Christ,  which  was  fundamental  in  Paul's  religious 
thought  and  life,  was  derived  from  the  pre-Christian  conception 
of  the  Messiah  which  Paul  already  had  before  his  conversion. 
The  Messiah,  in  the  thought  of  the  Jews,  was  not  always  con- 
ceived of  merely  as  a  king  of  David's  line;  sometimes  he  was 
regarded  rather  as  a  mysterious,  preexistent,  heavenly  being 
who  was  to  come  suddenly  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  be 
the  judge  of  all  the  earth.  This  transcendent  conception  which 

1  Die  Entstehung  der  paulinischen  Christologie,  1903 ;  "Zum  Thema  Jesus 
und  Paulus,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  die  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  vii, 
1906,  pp.  112-119;  "Der  Apostel  Paulus  als  Zeuge  wider  das  Christusbild  der 
Evangelien,"  in  Protestantische  Monatshefte,  x,  1906,  pp.  352-364. 


28  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

is  attested  by  the  Jewish  apocalypses  like  the  Ethiopia  Book 
of  Enoch,  was,  Wrede  maintained,  the  conception  of  the  Jew, 
Saul  of  Tarsus.  When,  therefore,  JPaul  in  his  Epistles  repre- 
sents Christ  as  preexistent,  and  as  standing  close  to  the  Su- 
preme Being  in  rulership  and  judgment,  the  phenomenon, 
though  it  may  seem  strange  to  us,  is  not  really  unique;  it  is 
exactly  what  is  found  in  the  apocalypses.  What  was  new  in 
Paul,  as  over  against  pre-Christian  Judaism,  was  the  belief 

!that  the  heavenly  Messiah  had  already  come  to  earth  and  car- 
ried out  a  work  of  redemption.  This  belief  was  not  derived, 
Wrede  maintained,  from  any  impression  of  the  exalted  moral 
character  of  Jesus ;  on  the  contrary,  if  Paul  had  really  come 
into  any  close  contact  with  the  historical  Jesus,  he  might 
have  had  difficulty  in  identifying  Him  so  completely  with  the 
heavenly  Messiah ;  the  impression  of  the  truly  human  character 
of  Jesus  and  of  His  subjection  to  all  the  ordinary  limits  of 
earthly  life  would  have  hindered  the  ascription  to  Him  of  the 
transcendent  attributes.  Jesus,  for  Paul,  merely  provided 
the  one  fact  that  the  Messiah  had  already  come  to  earth  and 
died  and  risen  again.  Operating  with  that  fact,  interpreting 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  as  an  act  of  redemption  undertaken 
out  of  love  for  men,  Paul  was  able  to  develop  all  the  fervor  of 
his  Christ-religion. 

In  very  recent  years,  another  account  of  the  origin  of 
Paulinism  is  becoming  increasingly  prevalent.  This  account 
agrees  with  Wrede  in  rejecting  the  liberal  derivation  of  the 
.  religion  of  Paul  from  an  impression  of  the  historical  person 
of  Jesus.  But  it  differs  from  Wrede  in  its  view  of  the  source 
from  which  the  religion  of  Paul  is  actually  to  be  derived. 
According  to  this  latest  hypothesis,  Paulinism  was  based  not 
upon  the  pre-Christian  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah,  but 
upon  contemporary  pagan  religion. 

This  hypothesis  represents  the  application  to  the  prob- 
lem of  Paulinism  of  the  method  of  modern  comparative  religion. 
About  twenty  years  ago  that  method  began  to  be  extended 
resolutely  into  the  New  Testament  field,  and  it  has  been  be- 
coming increasingly  prevalent  ever  since.  Despite  the  preval- 
ence of  the  method,  however,  and  the  variety  of  its  application, 
one  great  comprehensive  work  may  now  fairly  lay  claim  to  be 
taken  as  summing  up  the  results.  That  work  is  the  book  of 
W.  Bousset,  entitled  "Kyrios  Christos,"  which  appeared  in 


INTRODUCTION  29 

1913.1  It  is  perhaps  too  early  as  yet  to  estimate  the  full  im- 
portance of  Bousset's  work.  But  unless  all  indications  fail,  the 
work  is  really  destined  to  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  New 
Testament  criticism.  Since  the  days  of  F.  C.  Baur,  in  the 
former  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  there  has  been  no  such 
original,  comprehensive,  and  grandly  conceived  rewriting  of 
early  Christian  history  as  has  now  appeared  in  Bousset's 
"Kyrios  Christos."  The  only  question  is  whether  originality, 
in  this  historical  sphere,  is  always  compatible  with  truth. 

According  to  Bousset,  the  historicity  of  Jesus  is  to  be 
maintained;  Jesus  was  really  a  religious  teacher  of  incom- 
parable power.  But  Bousset  rejects  much  more  of  the  Gospel 
account  of  Jesus'  life  than  is  rejected  in  the  ordinary  "liberal" 
view;  Bousset  seems  even  to  be  doubtful  as  to  whether 
Jesus  ever  presented  Himself  to  His  disciples  as  the  Messiah, 
the  Messianic  element  in  the  Gospels  being  regarded  for  the 
most  part  as  a  mere  reflection  of  the  later  convictions  of  the 
disciples.  After  the  crucifixion,  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem, 
Bousset  continues,  were  convinced  that  Jesus  had  risen  from 
the  dead,  and  that  He  was  truly  the  Messiah.  They  conceived 
of  His  Messiahship  chiefly  under  the  category  of  the  "Son  of 
Man";  Jesus,  they  believed,  was  the  heavenly  being  who  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  in  the  apoca- 
lypses appears  in  the  presence  of  the  supreme  God  as  the  one 
who  is  to  judge  the  world.  This  heavenly  Son  of  Man  was 
taken  from  them  for  a  time,  but  they  looked  with  passionate 
eagerness  for  His  speedy  return.  The  piety  of  the  early  Jerusa- 
lem Church  was  therefore  distinctly  eschatological ;  it_was^ 
founded  not  upon  any  conviction  of  a  present  vital  relation  to 
Jesus,  but  on  the  hope  of  His  future  coming.  In  the  Greek- 
speaking  Christian  communities  of  such  cities  as  Antioch  and 
Tarsus,  Bousset  continues,  an  important  additional  step  was 
taken ;  Jesus  there  began  to  be  not  only  hoped  for  as  the  future 
judge  but  also  adored  as  the  present  Lord.  He  came  to  be 
regarded  as  present  in  the  meetings  of  the  Church.  The  term 
"Lord,"  with  the  conception  that  it  represents,  was  never,  ac- 
cording to  Bousset,  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  primitive  Pales- 
tinian Church;  it  was  first  applied  to  Him  in  Hellenistic 
Christian  communities  like  the  one  at  Antioch.  And  it  was 
there  derived  distinctly  from  the  prevalent  pagan  religion.  In 
1  Compare  also  Bousset,  Jesus  der  Herr,  1916. 


30  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  type  of  religion  familiar  to  the  disciples  at  Antioch,  the  term 
"Lord"  was  used  to  denote  the  cult-god,  especially  in  the  so- 
called  "mystery  religions" ;  and  the  Antioch  disciples  naturally 
used  the  same  term  to  designate  the  object  of  their  own  adora- 
tion. But  with  the  term  went  the  idea ;  Jesus  was  now  consid- 
ered to  be  present  in  the  meetings  of  the  Church,  just  as  the 
cult-gods  of  the  pagan  religions  were  considered  to  be  present 
in  the  worship  practiced  by  those  religions.  An  important 
step  had  been  taken  beyond  the  purely  eschatological  piety  of 
the  Jerusalem  disciples. 

But  how  about  Paul?  Here  is  to  be  found  one  of  the  bold- 
est elements  in  all  the  bold  reconstruction  of  Bousset.  Paul, 
Bousset  believes,  was  not  connected  in  any  intimate  way  with 
the  primitive  Christianity  in  Palestine;  what  he  "received"  he 
received  rather  from  the  Hellenistic  Christianity,  just  described, 
of  cities  like  Antioch.  He  received,  therefore,  the  Hellenistic 
conception  of  Jesus  as  Lord.  But  he  added  to  that  con- 
ception by  connecting  the  "Lord"  with  the  "Spirit."  The 
"Lord"  thus  became  present  not  only  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Church  for  worship  but  also  in  the  individual  lives  of  the 
believers.  Paulinism  as  it  appears  in  the  Epistles  was  thus 
complete.  But  this  distinctly  Pauline  contribution,  like  the 
conception  of  the  Lordship  of  Jesus  to  which  it  was  added, 
was  of  pagan  origin;  it  was  derived  from  the  mystical  piety 
of  the  time,  with  its  sharp  dualism  between  a  material  and  a 
spiritual  realm  and  its  notion  of  the  transformation  of  man 
by  immediate  contact  with  the  divine.  Paulinism,  therefore, 
according  to  Bousset,  was  a  religion  of  redemption.  But  as 
such  it  was  derived  not  at  all  from  the  historical  Jesus  (whose 
1  optimistic  teaching  contained  no  thought  of  redemption)  but 
from  the  pessimistic  dualism  of  the  pagan  world.  The  "liberal" 
distinction  between  Pauline  religion  and  Pauline;  theology, 
the  attempt  at  saving  Paul's  religion  by  the  sacrifice  of  his 
theology,  is  here  abandoned,  and  all  that  is  most  clearly  dis- 
tinctive of  Paulinism  (though  of  course  some  account  is  taken 
of  the  contribution  of  his  Jewish  inheritance  and  of  his  own 
genius)  is  derived  from  pagan  sources. 

The  hypothesis  of  Bousset,  together  with  the  rival  recon- 
structions which  have  just  been  outlined,  will  be  examined  in  the 
following  discussion.  But  before  they  can  be  examined  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  a  word  about  the  sources  of  information 


INTRODUCTION  31 

with  regard  to  the  life  of  Paul.  No  discussion  of  the  literary 
questions  can  indeed  here  be  undertaken.  Almost  all  that  can 
be  done  is  to  set  forth  very  briefly  the  measure  of  agreement 
which  has  been  attained  in  this  field,  and  the  bearing  of  the 
points  that  are  still  disputed  upon  the  subject  of  the  present 
investigation. 

The  sources  of  information  about  Paul  are  contained  almost 
exclusively  in  the  New  Testament.  They  are,  first,  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  and,  second,  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Four  of  the  Pauline  Epistles — Galatians,  1  and  2  Corinth- 
ians, and  Romans — were  accepted  as  certainly  genuine  by 
F.  C.  Baur,  the  founder  of  the  "Tubingen  School"  of  criticism 
in  the  former  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  This  favorable 
estimate  of  the  "major  epistles"  has  never  been  abandoned  by 
any  number  of  really  serious  historians,  and  three  of  the  other 
epistles — 1  Thessalonians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon — have 
now  been  added  to  the  "homologoumena."  Seven  epistles,  there- 
fore, are  accepted  as  genuine  to-day  by  all  historians  except  a 
few  extremists.  Of  the  remaining  epistles,  Colossians  is  ac- 
cepted by  the  majority  of  investigators  of  all  shades  of  opin- 
ion, and  even  in  the  case  of  2  Thessalonians  and  Ephesians,  the 
acceptance  of  the  hypothesis  of  genuineness  is  no  longer  re- 
garded as  a  clear  mark  of  "conservatism,"  these  two  epistles 
being  regarded  as  genuine  letters  of  Paul  by  some  even  of  those 
who  are  not  in  general  favorable  to  the  traditional  view  of  the 
New  Testament. 

With  regard  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles — 1  and  2  Timothy 
and  Titus — the  issue  is  more  clearly  drawn.  These  epistles,  at 
least  in  their  entirety,  are  seldom  regarded  as  genuine  except 
by  those  who  adopt  in  general  the  traditional  view  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  supernaturalistic  conception  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity.  That  does  not  mean  that  the  case  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  is  desperate — certainly  the  present  writer  is  firmly 
convinced  that  the  epistles  are  genuine  and  that  a  denial  of 
their  genuineness  really  impoverishes  in  important  respects  our 
conception  of  the  work  of  Paul — but  it  does  mean  that  with  re- 
gard to  these  epistles  the  two  great  contending"  views  con- 
cerning the  New  Testament  come  into  sharp  conflict;  common 
ground,  in  other  words,  cannot  here  be  found,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  major  epistles,  between  those  who  hold  widely  divergent 
views  as  to  the  origin  of  Christianity. 


32  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

It  would  be  out  of  place  in  the  present  connection  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastorals.  That 
question  is  indeed  enormously  important.  It  is  important  for 
the  view  which  is  to  be  held  concerning  the  New  Testament 
canon ;  it  is  important  for  any  estimate  of  Christian  tradition ; 
it  is  important  even  for  a  complete  estimate  of  the  work  of 
Paul.  But  it  is  not  directly  important  for  the  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  Paulinism;  for  all  the  essential  features  of  Paul- 
inism,  certainly  all  those  features  which  make  Paulinism,  upon 
naturalistic  principles,  most  difficult  of  explanation,  appear 
plainly  in  the  accepted  epistles. 

The  question  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
of  vital  importance  even  for  the  present  investigation.  Even 
that  question,  however,  must  here  be  dismissed  with  a  word, 
though  it  is  hoped  that  light  may  be  shed  upon  it  by  the  whole 
of  the  following  discussion. 

Literary  evidence  of  peculiar  strength  may  be  adduced  in 
favor  of  the  view  that  the  Book  of  Acts  was  really  written,  as 
tradition  affirms,  by  a  companion  of  Paul.  This  evidence 
is  based  primarily  upon  the  presence  in  the  book  of  certain 
sections  where  the  narrative  is  carried  on  in  the  first  person 
instead  of  the  third.  It  is  generally  or  even  universally  ad- 
mitted that  these  "we-sections"  are  the  work  of  an  eyewitness, 
an  actual  traveling  companion  of  Paul.  But  according  to 
the  common-sense  view — according  to  the  first  impression  made 
upon  every  ordinary  reader — the  author  of  the  we-sections  was 
also  the  author  of  the  whole  book,  who  when  he  came  in  his 
narrative  to  those  parts  of  the  missionary  journeys  of  Paul 
where  he  had  actually  been  present  with  the  apostolic  company 
naturally  dropped  into  the  use  of  the  first  person  instead  of  the 
third.  If  this  common-sense  view  be  incorrect,  then  a  later 
author  who  produced  the  completed  book  has  in  the  we-sections 
simply  made  use  of  an  eyewitness  source.  But  this  hypothesis 
is  fraught  with  the  most  serious  difficulty.  If  the  author  of  the 
completed  book,  writing  at  a  time  long  after  the  time  of  Paul, 
was  in  the  we-sections  using  the  work  of  a  companion  of  Paul, 
why  did  he  not  either  say  that  he  was  quoting  or  else  change 
the  "we"  of  the  source  to  "they."  The  first  person  plural, 
used  without  explanation  by  a  writer  of,  say,  100  A.D.  in  a 
narrative  of  the  journeys  of  Paul,  would  be  preposterous. 


INTRODUCTION  35 

What  could  be  the  explanation  of  so   extraordinary  a  pro- 
cedure? 

Only  two  explanations  are  possible.  In  the  first  place,  the 
author  may  have  retained  the  "we"  with  deceitful  intent,  with 
the  intent  of  producing  the  false  impression  that  he  himself 
was  a  companion  of  Paul.  This  hypothesis  is  fraught  with  in- 
superable difficulty  and  is  generally  rejected.  In  the  second 
place,  the  author  may  have  retained  the  "we"  because  he  was 
a  mere  compiler,  copying  out  his  sources  with  mechanical  ac- 
curacy, and  so  unable  to  make  the  simple  editorial  change  of 
"we"  to  "they."  This  hypothesis  is  excluded  by  the  striking 
similarity  of  language  and  style  between  the  we-sections  and 
the  rest  of  Luke-Acts,  which  shows  that  if  the  author  of  the 
completed  double  work  is  in  the  we-sections  making  use  of  a 
source  written  by  some  one  else,  he  has  revised  the  source  so  as 
to  make  it  conform  to  his  own  style.  But  if  he  revised  the 
source,  he  was  no  mere  compiler,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
retained  the  first  person  plural  which  in  the  completed  book  pro- 
duced nonsense.  The  whole  hypothesis  therefore  breaks  down. 

Such  considerations  have  led  a  number  of  recent  scholars — 
even  of  those  who  are  unable  to  accept  the  supernaturalistic 
account  which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives  of  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity— to  return  to  the  traditional  view  that  the  book  was 
actually  written  by  Luke  the  physician,  a  companion  of  Paul. 
The  argument  for  Lucan  authorship  has  been  developed  with 
great  acumen  especially  by  Von  Harnack1  And  on  the  basis 
of  purely  literary  criticism  the  argument  is  certainly  irrefut- 
able. It  can  be  refuted,  if  at  all,  only  through  a  consideration 
of  the  historical  contents  of  the  book. 

Such  attempts  at  refutation  have  not  been  lacking;  the 
Lucan  authorship  of  Acts  is  still  rejected  by  the  great  ma- 
jority of  those  who  maintain  the  naturalistic  view  of  the  origin 
of  Christianity.  The  objections  may  be  subsumed  under  two 
main  heads.  The  Book  of  Acts,  it  is  said,  is  not  the  kind  of 
book  that  could  have  been  written  by  a  companion  of  Paul, 
in  the  first  place  because  it  contains  an  account  of  miracles, 

1Lukas  der  Arzt,  1906  (English  Translation,  Luke  the  Physician, 
1907)  ;  Die  Apostelgeschichte,  1908  (English  Translation,  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  1909) ;  Neue  Untersuchungen  zur  Apostelgeschichte  und  zur 
Abfassungszeit  der  synoptischen  Evangelien,  1911  (English  Translation, 
The  Date  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  1911). 


54  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

and  in  the  second  place,  because  it  contradicts  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  particularly  in  the  account  which  it  gives  of  the 
relations  between  Paul  and  the  Jerusalem  Church. 

The  former  objection  is  entirely  valid  on  the  basis  of  any 
naturalistic  account  of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  Efforts 
have  indeed  been  made  by  Von  Harnack,  C.  C.  Torrey,  and 
others,  to  overcome  the  objection.  Belief  in  miracles,  it  is 
said,  was  very  general  in  the  ancient  world ;  a  miraculous  inter- 
pretation could  therefore  be  placed  upon  happenings  for  which 
the  modern  man  would  have  no  difficulty  in  discovering  a  nat- 
ural cause.  Luke  was  a  child  of  his  time;  even  in  the  we- 
sections,  Von  Harnack  insists,  where  the  work  of  an  eyewitness 
is  universally  recognized,  a  supernaturalistic  interpretation  is 
placed  upon  natural  events — as,  for  example,  when  Paul  ex- 
cites the  wonder  of  his  companions  by  shaking  off  into  the  fire 
a  viper  that  was  no  doubt  perfectly  harmless.  Why,  then, 
should  the  presence  of  the  supernatural  in  the  rest  of  the  book 
be  used  to  refute  the  hypothesis  of  the  Lucan  authorship,  if 
it  is  not  so  used  in  the  we-sections?  l 

This  method  of  refuting  the  objection  drawn  from  the 
,  presence  of  the  supernatural  in  Luke-Acts  has  sometimes  led 
to  a  curious  return  to  the  rationalizing  method  of  interpreta- 
tion which  was  prevalent  one  hundred  years  ago.  By  that 
method  of  interpretation  even  the  details  of  the  New  Testament 
miracles  were  accepted  as  historical,  but  it  was  thought  that 
the  writers  were  wrong  in  regarding  those  details  as  miraculous. 
Great  ingenuity  was  displayed  by  such  rationalists  as  Paulus 
and  many  others  in  exhibiting  the  true  natural  causes  of  de- 
tails which  to  the  first  observers  seemed  to  be  supernatural. 
Such  rationalizing  has  usually  been  thought  to  have  received 
its  death-blow  at  the  hands  of  Strauss,  who  showed  that  the 
New  Testament  narratives  were  either  to  be  accepted  as  a 
whole — miracles  and  all — or  else  regarded  as  myths,  that  is, 
as  the  clothing  of  religious  ideas  in  historical  forms.  But 
now,  under  the  impulsion  of  literary  criticism,  which  has  led 
away  from  the  position  of  Baur  and  Strauss  and  back  to  the 
traditional  view  of  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books,  the  expedients  of  the  rationalizers  have  in  some 
cases  been  revived. 

1  Harnack,   Die  Apostelgeschichte,    1908,  pp.    111-130    (English   Transla- 
tion, The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  1909,  pp.  133-161). 


INTRODUCTION  35 

The  entire  effort  of  Von  Harnack  is,  however,  quite  hope- 
less. The  objection  to  the  Lucan  authorship  of  Acts  which 
is  drawn  from  the  supernatural  element  in  the  narrative  is 
irrefutable  on  the  basis  of  any  naturalistic  view  of  the  origin 
of  Christianity.  The  trouble  is  that  the  supernatural  element 
in  Acts  does  not  concern  merely  details ;  it  lies,  rather,  at  the 
root  of  the  whole  representation.  The  origin  of  the  Church, 
according  to  the  modern  naturalistic  reconstruction,  was  due 
to  the  belief  of  the  early  disciples  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus ; 
that  belief  in  turn  was  founded  upon  certain  hallucinations  in 
which  they  thought  they  saw  Jesus  alive  after  His  passion. 
In  such  experiences,  the  optic  nerve  is  affected  not  by  an  ex- 
ternal object  but  by  the  condition  of  the  subject  himself. 
But  there  are  limitations  to  what  is  possible  in  experiences  of 
that  sort,  especially  where  numbers  of  persons  are  affected  and 
at  different  times.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  thought  they  had  any  extended  intercourse 
with  Him  after  His  passion ;  momentary  appearances,  with  pos- 
sibly a  few  spoken  words,  were  all  that  they  could  have  ex- 
perienced. This  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Church  is  thought 
to  be  in  accord  with  the  all-important  testimony  of  Paul, 
especially  in  1  Cor.  xv.  3-8  where  he  is  reproducing  a  primitive 
tradition.  Thus  desperate  efforts  are  made  to  show  that  the 
reference  by  Paul  to  the  burial  of  Jesus  does  not  by  any 
means  confirm  the  accounts  given  in  the  Gospels  of  events  con- 
nected with  the  empty  tomb.  Sometimes,  indeed,  in  recent 
criticism,  the  fact  of  the  empty  tomb  is  accepted,  and  then 
explained  in  some  naturalistic  way.  But  at  any  rate,  the  cardi- 
nal feature  of  the  modern  reconstruction  is  that  the  early 
Church,  including  Paul,  had  a  spiritual  rather  than  a  physical 
conception  of  the  risen  body  of  Jesus;  there  was  no  extended 
intercourse,  it  is  supposed;  Jesus  appeared  to  His  disciples 
momentarily,  in  heavenly  glory. 

But  this  entire  representation  is  diametrically  opposed  to 
the  representation  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  in  the  Book 
of  Acts.  If  there  is  any  one  writer  who  emphasizes  the  plain, 
physical  character  of  the  contact  between  the  disciples  and 
their  risen  Lord,  it  is  the  author  of  Luke-Acts.  In  proof,  it 
is  only  necessary  to  point  to  Acts  x.  41,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
risen  Jesus  held  table-companionship  with  His  disciples  after 


36  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

He  was  risen  from  the  dead !  But  that  is  only  one  detail.  The 
author  of  Acts  is  firmly  convinced  that  the  contact  of  the  risen 
Jesus  with  His  disciples,  though  not  devoid  of  mysterious  fea- 
tures, involved  the  absence  of  the  body  of  Jesus  from  the  tomb 
and  an  intercourse  (intermittent,  it  is  true,  but  including 
physical  proofs  of  the  most  definite  kind)  extending  over  a 
period  of  forty  days.  Nothing  could  possibly  be  more  direct- 
ly contrary  to  what  the  current  critical  view  regards  as  the 
real  account  given  in  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church  and  by  the 
apostle  Paul. 

Yet  on  the  basis  of  that  modern  critical  view,  Von  Har- 
nack  and  others  have  maintained  that  the  book  in  which  so 
false  an  account  is  given  of  the  origin  of  the  Church  was  actual- 
ly the  work  of  a  man  of  the  apostolic  age.     It  is  no  wonder 
that   Von   Harnack's    conclusions   have    evoked    an    emphatic 
protest  from  other  naturalistic  historians.     Luke  was  a  close 
associate  of  Paul.     Could  he  possibly  have  given  an  account 
of  things  absolutely  fundamental  in  Paul's  gospel  (1  Cor.  xv. 
1-8)  which  was  so  diametrically  opposed  to  what  Paul  taught? 
He  was  in  Jerusalem  in  58  A.D.  or  earlier,  and  during  years 
of  his  life  was  in  close  touch  with  Palestinian  disciples.     Could 
he  possibly  have  given  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  so  totally  at  variance  with  the   account  which  that 
church  itself  maintained?     These  questions  constitute  a  com- 
plete refutation  of  Von  Harnack's  view,  when  that  view  is  taken 
as  a  whole.     But  they  do  not  at  all  constitute  a  refutation  of 
the  conclusions  of  Von  Harnack  in  the  sphere  of  literary  criti- 
cism.    On  the   contrary,  by   showing  how  inconsistent   those 
conclusions  are  with  other  elements  in  the  thinking  of  the  in- 
vestigator, they  make  only  the  more  impressive  the  strength  of 
the  argument  which  has  overcome  such  obstacles.     The  objec- 
tion points  out  the  antinomy  which  exists  between  the  literary 
criticism  of  Von  Harnack  and  his  naturalistic  account  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity.     What  that  antinomy  means  is  merely 
that   the   testimony    of   Acts    to    the    supernatural    origin    of 
Christianity,  far  from  being  removed  by  literary  criticism,  is 
strongly  supported  by  it.     A  companion  of  Paul  could  not 
have  been  egregiously  mistaken  about  the  origin  of  the  Church ; 
but  literary  criticism  establishes  Luke-Acts  as  the  work  of  a 
companion  of  Paul.     Hence  there  is  some  reason  for  suppos- 


INTRODUCTION  37 

ing  that  the  account  given  in  this  book  is  essentially  correct, 
and  that  the  naturalistic  reconstruction  of  the  origin  of 
Christianity  must  be  abandoned. 

The  second  objection  to  the  Lucan  authorship  of  Acts 
is  based  upon  the  contradiction  which  is  thought  to  exist  be- 
tween the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul.1  The  way 
to  test  the  value  of  a  historical  work,  it  is  said,  is  to  compare 
it  with  some  recognized  authority.  With  regard  to  most  of 
the  narrative  in  Acts,  no  such  comparison  is  possible,  since 
there  is  no  account  parallel  to  Acts  by  which  it  may  be  tested. 
But  in  certain  places  the  Book  of  Acts  provides  an  account 
of  events  which  are  also  narrated  in  the  isolated  biographical 
parts  of  the  Pauline  Epistles — notably  in  the  first  two  chapters 
of  Galatians.  Here  at  last  is  found  the  long-sought  opportu- 
nity for  comparison.  And  the  comparison,  it  is  said,  results 
unfavorably  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  is  found  to  contradict 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  not  merely  in  details,  but  in  the 
whole  account  which  it  gives  of  the  relation  between  Paul  and 
the  Jerusalem  Church.  But  if  the  Book  of  Acts  fails  to  ap- 
prove itself  in  the  one  place  where  it  can  be  tested  by  com-  . 
parison  with  a  recognized  authority,  the  presumption  is  that 
it  may  be  wrong  elsewhere  as  well;  in  particular,  it  is  quite 
impossible  that  a  book  which  so  completely  misrepresents  what 
happened  at  a  most  important  crisis  of  Paul's  life  could  have 
been  written  by  a  close  friend  of  the  apostle. 

This  argument  was  developed  particularly  by  Baur  and 
Zeller  and  their  associates  in  the  "Tubingen  School."  Accord- 
ing to  Baur,  the  major  epistles  of  Paul  constitute  the  primary 
source  of  information  about  the  apostolic  age;  they  should 
therefore  be  interpreted  without  reference  to  any  other  source. 
When  they  are  so  interpreted,  they  show  that  the  fundamental 
fact  of  apostolic  history  was  a  conflict  between  Paul  on  one 
side  and  the  original  apostles  on  the  other.  The  conflict,  Baur 
maintained  further,  is  particularly  plain  in  the  Epistles  to 
the  Galatians  and  Corinthians,  which  emphasize  the  complete 
independence  of  Paul  with  reference  to  the  pillars  of  the  Jerusa- 

1  For  what  follows,  compare  "Jesus  and  Paul,"  in  Biblical  and  Theological 
Studies  by  the  Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary, 
1912,  pp.  553f.;  "Recent  Criticism  of  the  Book  of  Acts,"  in  Princeton 
Theological  Review,  xvii,  1919,  pp.  593-597. 


38  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

lem  Church,  and  his  continued  opposition  to  the  efforts  of  Jew- 
ish Christians  to  bring  the  Gentiles  into  subjection  to  the  Jew- 
ish Law — efforts  which  must  have  been  supported  to  some  ex- 
tent by  the  attitude  of  the  original  apostles.  This  conflict, 
Baur  supposed  further,  continued  up  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century;  there  was  a  Gentile  Christian  party  appealing  to 
Paul  and  a  Jewish  Christian  party  appealing  to  Peter.  Finally 
however,  Baur  continued,  a  compromise  was  effected;  the 
Pauline  party  gave  up  what  was  really  most  distinctive  in  the 

t  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification,  while  the  Petrine  party  re- 
linquished the  demand  of  circumcision.  The  New  Testament 
documents,  according  to  Baur,  are  to  be  dated  in  accordance 
with  the  position  that  they  assume  in  the  conflict;  those  docu- 
ments which  take  sides — which  are  strongly  anti-Pauline  or 

1  strongly  anti-Petrine — are  to  be  placed  early,  while  those 
which  display  a  tendency  toward  compromise  are  to  be  placed 
late,  at  the  time  when  the  conflict  was  being  settled.  Such 
was  the  "tendency-criticism"  of  Baur.  By  that  criticism  the 
Book  of  Acts  was  dated  well  on  in  the  second  century,  because 
it  was  thought  to  display  a  tendency  toward  compromise — 
an  "irenic  tendency."  This  tendency,  Baur  supposed,  mani- 
fested itself  in  the  Book  of  Acts  in  a  deliberate  falsification 
of  history;  in  order  to  bring  about  peace  between  the  Petrine 
and  the  Pauline  parties  in  the  Church,  the  author  of  Acts 
attempted  to  show  by  a  new  account  of  the  apostolic  age  that 
Peter  and  Paul  really  were  in  perfect  agreement.  To  that  end, 
in  the  Book  of  Acts,  Paul  is  Petrinized,  and  Peter  is  Paulinized ; 
the  sturdy  independence  of  Paul,  which  actually  kept  him  long 
away  from  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion,  gives  place,  in  Acts, 
to  a  desire  of  contact  with  the  Jerusalem  Church,  which 
brought  him  early  to  Jerusalem  and  finally  led  him  even  to 
accept  for  his  Gentile  converts,  at  the  "Apostolic  Council," 
a  portion  of  the  ceremonial  law.  Peter,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
represented  in  Acts  as  giving  expression  at  the  Apostolic 
Council  to  Pauline  sentiments  about  the  Law ;  and  all  through 
the  book  there  is  an  elaborate  and  unhistorical  parallelism 
between  Peter  and  Paul. 

The  theory  of  Baur  did  not  long  maintain  itself  in  its  en- 
tirety. It  received  a  searching  criticism  particularly  from  A. 
Ritschl.  The  conflict  of  the  apostolic  age,  Ritschl  pointed 


INTRODUCTION  39 

out,  was  not  a  conflict  between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles, 
but  between  all  the  apostles  (including  both  Paul  and  Peter)  on 
the  one  side,  and  an  extreme  Judaizing  party  on  the  other; 
that  conflict  did  not  continue  throughout  the  second  century; 
on  the  contrary,  specifically  Jewish  Christianity  soon  ceased 
to  be  influential,  and  the  legalistic  character  of  the  Old  Cath- 
olic Church  of  the  end  of  the  second  century,  in  which  Chris- 
tianity was  conceived  of  as  a  new  law,  was  due  not  to  any 
compromise  with  the  legalism  of  the  Judaizers  but  to  a  natural 
process  of  degeneration  from  Paulinism  on  purely  Gentile 
Christian  ground. 

The  Tubingen  dating  of  the  New  Testament  documents, 
moreover,  has  been  abandoned  under  a  more  thorough  investi- 
gation of  early  Christian  literature.  A  study  of  patristics 
soon  rendered  it  impossible  to  string  out  the  New  Testament 
books  anywhere  throughout  the  second  century  in  the  interest 
of  a  plausible  theory  of  development.  External  evidence  has 
led  to  a  much  earlier  dating  of  most  of  the  books  than  Baur's 
theory  required.  The  Tubingen  estimate  of  the  Book  of  Acts, 
in  particular,  has  for  the  most  part  been  modified;  the  book 
is  dated  much  earlier,  and  it  is  no  longer  thought  to  be  a  party 
document  written  in  the  interests  of  a  deliberate  falsification 
of  history. 

Nevertheless,  the  criticism  of  Baur  and  Zeller,  though  no 
longer  accepted  as  a  whole,  is  still  influential;  the  comparison 
of  Acts  and  Galatians,  particularly  in  that  which  concerns 
the  Apostolic  Council  of  Acts  xv,  is  still  often  thought  to 
result  unfavorably  to  the  Book  of  Acts.  Even  at  this  point, 
however,  a  more  favorable  estimate  of  Acts  has  been  gaining 
ground.  The  cardinal  principle  of  Baur,  to  the  effect  that 
the  major  epistles  of  Paul  should  be  interpreted  entirely  with- 
out reference  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  is  being  called  in  question. 
Such  a  method  of  interpretation,  it  may  well  be  urged,  is  likely 
to  result  in  one-sidedness.  If  the  Book  of  Acts  commends 
itself  at  all  as  containing  trustworthy  information,  it  should 
be  allowed  to  cast  light  upon  the  Epistles.  The  account  which 
Paul  gives  in  Galatians  is  not  so  complete  as  to  render  su- 
perfluous any  assistance  which  may  be  derived  from  an  inde- 
pendent narrative.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  matter  what 
principles  of  interpretation  are  held,  the  Book  of  Acts  simply 


40  THE!  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

must  be  used  in  interpreting  the  Epistles;  without  the  outline 
given  in  Acts  the  Epistles  would  be  unintelligible.1  Perhaps  it 
may  turn  out,  therefore,  that  Baur  produced  his  imposing 
reconstruction  of  the  apostolic  age  by  neglecting  all  sources 
except  Galatians  and  the  Corinthian  Epistles — and  then  by 
misinterpreting  these. 

The  comparison  of  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  will  be 
reserved  for  the  chapters  that  deal  with  the  outline  of  Paul's 
life.  It  will  there  be  necessary  to  deal  with  the  vexed  question 
of  the  Apostolic  Council.  The  question  is  vital  for  the  present 
discussion;  for  if  it  can  really  be  shown  that  Paul  was  in 
fundamental  disagreement  with  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  then  the  way  is  opened  for  supposing  that  he  was 
in  disagreement  with  Jesus  Himself.  The  question  raised  by 
Baur  with  regard  to  the  Book  of  Acts  has  a  most  important 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  origin  of  Paulinism. 

All  that  can  now  be  done,  however,  is  to  point  out  that  the 
tendency  at  the  present  time  is  toward  a  higher  and  higher 
estimate  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  A  more  careful  study  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  themselves  is  exhibiting  elements  in  Paul's 
thinking  which  justify  more  and  more  clearly  the  account 
which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives  of  the  relations  of  Paul  to  Juda- 
ism and  to  Jewish  Christianity. 

. 'J.  Weiss,  Urchristentum,  1914,  p.  107:  "It  is  simply  impossible  for  us 
to  erase  it  [the  Book  of  Acts]  so  completely  from  our  memory  as  to 
read  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as  though  we  had  never  known  Acts; 
without  the  Book  of  Acts  we  should  simply  not  be  able  to  understand 
Galatians  at  all." 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  EARLY  YEARS 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    EARLY   YEARS 

BEFORE  examining  the  various  hypotheses  which  have  been 
advanced  to  account  for  the  origin  of  Paulinism,  the  investi- 
gator must  consider  first  the  outline  of  Paul's  life,  at  least  so 
far  as  the  formative  years  are  concerned.  Paulinism  has  been 
explained  by  the  influence  upon  Paul  of  various  features  of 
his  environment.  It  is  important,  therefore,  to  determine  at 
what  points  Paul  came  into  contact  with  his  environment. 
What,  in  view  of  the  outline  of  his  life,  were  his  probable  op- 
portunities for  acquainting  himself  with  the  historical  Jesus 
and  with  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church?  Whence  did  he 
derive  his  Judaism?  Where,  if  at  all,  could  he  naturally  have 
been  influenced  by  contemporary  paganism?  Such  questions, 
it  is  hoped,  may  be  answered  by  the  two  following  chapters. 

In  these  chapters,  the  outline  of  Paul's  life  will  be  con- 
sidered not  for  its  own  sake,  but  merely  for  the  light  that  it 
may  shed  upon  the  origin  of  his  thought  and  experience.  Many 
questions,  therefore,  may  be  ignored.  For  example,  it  would 
here  be  entirely  aside  from  the  point  to  discuss  such  intricate 
matters  as  the  history  of  Paul's  journeys  to  Corinth  attested 
by  the  Corinthian  Epistles.  The  present  discussion  is  con- 
cerned only  with  those  events  in  the  life  of  Paul  which  deter- 
mined the  nature  of  his  contact  with  the  surrounding  world, 
both  Jewish  and  pagan,  and  particularly  the  nature  of  his 
contact  with  Jesus  and  the  earliest  disciples  of  Jesus. 

Paul  was  born  at  Tarsus,  the  chief  city  of  Cilicia.  This 
fact  is  attested  only  by  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  formerly  it  did 
not  escape  unchallenged.  It  was  called  in  question,  for  ex- 
ample, in  1890  by  Krenkel,  in  an  elaborate  argument.1  But 
Krenkel's  argument  is  now  completely  antiquated,  not  merely 
because  of  the  rising  credit  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  but  also  be- 

1  Krenkel,  Beitrdge  zur  Aufhellung  der  Geschichte  und  der  Brief e  des 
Apostels  Paulus,  1890,  pp.  1-17. 

43 


44  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

cause  the  birth  of  Paul  in  a  Greek  city  like  Tarsus  is  in  har- 
mony with  modern  reconstructions.  Krenkel  argued,  for  ex- 
ample, that  the  apostle  shows  little  acquaintance  with  Greek 
culture,  and  therefore  could  not  have  spent  his  youth  in  a 
Greek  university  city.  Such  assertions  appear  very  strange 
to-day.  Recent  philological  investigation  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  has  proved  that  the  author  uses  the  Greek  language 
in  such  masterly  fashion  that  he  must  have  become  familiar 
with  it  very  early  in  life;  the  language  of  the  Epistles  is  cer- 
tainly no  Jewish-Greek  jargon.  With  regard  to  the  origin  of 
the  ideas,  also,  the  tendency  of  recent  criticism  is  directly 
contrary  to  Krenkel;  Paulinism  is  now  often  explained  as 
being  based  either  upon  paganism  or  else  upon  a  Hellenized 
Judaism.  To  such  reconstructions  it  is  a  highly  welcome  piece 
of  information  when  the  Book  of  Acts  makes  Paul  a  native 
not  of  Jerusalem  but  of  Tarsus.  The  author  of  Acts,  it  is 
said,  is  here  preserving  a  bit  of  genuine  tradition,  which  is 
the  more  trustworthy  because  it  runs  counter  to  the  tendency, 
thought  to  be  otherwise  in  evidence  in  Acts,  which  brings  Paul 
into  the  closest  possible  relation  to  Palestine.  Thus,  whether 
for  good  or  for  bad  reasons,  the  birth  of  Paul  in  Tarsus  is 
now  universally  accepted,  and  does  not  require  defense. 

A  very  interesting  tradition  preserved  by  Jerome  does  in- 
deed make  Paul  a  native  of  Gischala  in  Galilee;  but  no  one 
to-day  would  be  inclined  to  follow  Krenkel  in  giving  credence 
to  Jerome  rather  than  to  Acts.  The  Gischala  tradition  does 
not  look  like  a  pure  fiction,  but  it  is  evident  that  Jerome  has 
at  any  rate  exercised  his  peculiar  talent  for  bringing  things 
into  confusion.  Zahn  l  has  suggested,  with  considerable 
plausibility,  that  the  shorter  reference  to  Gischala  in  the 
treatise  "De  viris  illustribus"  2  is  a  confused  abridgment  of 
the  longer  reference  in  the  "Commentary  on  Philemon."  3  The 
latter  passage  asserts  not  that  Paul  himself  but  only  that  the 
parents  of  Paul  came  from  Gischala.  That  assertion  may 
possibly  be  correct.  It  would  explain  the  Aramaic  and  Pales- 
tinian tradition  which  undoubtedly  was  preserved  in  the  boy- 
hood home  of  Paul. 

1  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3te  Aufl.,  i,  1906,  pp.  48-50  (English 

Translation,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  2nd  ed.,  1909,  i,  pp.  68-TO). 

*De  vir.  ill.  5  (ed.  Vail,  ii,  836). 

» Comm.  in  Philem.  23  (ed.  Vail,  vii, 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  45 

Tarsus  was  an  important  city.  Its  commercial  importance, 
though  of  course  inferior  to  that  of  places  like  Antioch  or 
Corinth,  was  considerable;  and  it  was  also  well  known  as  a 
center  of  intellectual  life.  Although  the  dramatic  possibilities 
of  representing  the  future  Christian  missionary  growing  up 
unknown  under  the  shadow  of  a  Greek  university  may  some- 
times have  led  to  an  exaggeration  of  the  academic  fame  of 
Tarsus,  still  it  remains  true  that  Tarsus  was  a  real  university 
city,  and  could  boast  of  great  names  like  that  of  Athenodorus, 
the  Stoic  philosopher,  and  others.  The  life  of  Tarsus  has 
recently  been  made  the  subject  of  two  elaborate  monographs, 
by  Ramsay  l  and  by  Bb'hlig,2  who  have  collected  a  mass  of 
information  about  the  birthplace  of  Paul.  The  nature  of  the 
pagan  religious  atmosphere  which  surrounded  the  future 
apostle  is  of  peculiar  interest ;  but  the  amount  of  direct  infor- 
mation which  has  come  down  to  us  should  not  be  exaggerated. 

The  social  position  of  Paul's  family  in  Tarsus  must  not  be 
regarded  as  very  humble;  for  according  to  the  Book  of  Acts 
not  only  Paul  himself,  but  his  father  before  him,  possessed 
the  Roman  citizenship,  which  in  the  provinces  was  still  in  the 
first  century  a  highly  prized  privilege  from  which  the  great 
masses  of  the  people  were  excluded.  The  Roman  citizenship 
of  Paul  is  not  attested  by  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  the  repre- 
sentation of  Acts  is  at  this  point  universally,  or  almost  uni- 
versally, accepted.  Only  one  objection  might  be  urged  against 
it.  If  Paul  was  a  Roman  citizen,  how  could  he  have  been  sub- 
jected three  times  to  the  Roman  punishment  of  beating  with 
rods  (2  Cor.  xi.  25),  from  which  citizens  were  exempted  by 
law?  The  difficulty  is  not  insuperable.  Paul  may  on 
some  occasions  have  been  unwilling  to  appeal  to  a  privi- 
lege which  separated  him  from  his  Jewish  countrymen ; 
or  he  may  have  wanted  to  avoid  the  delay  which  an  appeal  to 
his  privilege,  with  the  subsequent  investigation  and  trial,  might 
have  caused.  At  any  rate,  the  difficulty,  whether  easily  re- 
movable or  not,  is  quite  inadequate  to  overthrow  the  abundant 
evidence  for  the  fact  of  Paul's  Roman  citizenship.  That  fact 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  account  for  the  entire  representation 
which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives  of  the  journey  of  Paul  as  a 
prisoner  to  Rome,  which  representation,  it  will  be  remembered, 

1  The  Cities  of  St.  Paul,  1908,  pp..  85-244. 
s  Die  Geisteskultur  von  Tarsos,  1913. 


46  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

is  contained  in  the  we-sections.  The  whole  account  of  the 
relation  between  Paul  and  Roman  authorities,  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  trust- 
worthy Christian  tradition,  is  explicable  only  if  Paul  pos- 
sessed the  rights  of  citizenship.1 

Birth  in  a  Greek  university  city  and  Roman  citizenship 
constitute  the  two  facts  which  bring  Paul  into  early  connec- 
tion with  the  larger  Gentile  world  of  his  day.  Other  facts, 
equally  well-attested,  separate  him  just  as  clearly  from  the 
Gentile  world  and  represent  him  as  being  from  childhood  a 
strict  Jew.  These  facts  might  have  been  called  in  question,  in 
view  of  the  present  tendency  of  criticism,  if  they  had  been 
attested  only  by  the  Book  of  Acts.  But  fortunately  it  is  just 
these  facts  which  are  attested  also  by  the  epistles  of  Paul. 

In  2  Cor.  xi.  22,  Paul  is  declared  to  be  a  "Hebrew,"  and 
in  Phil.  iii.  5  he  appears  as  a  "Hebrew  of  Hebrews."  The  word 
"Hebrew"  in  these  passages  cannot  indicate  merely  Israelitish 
descent  or  general  adherence  to  the  Jews'  religion.  If  it  did 
so  it  would  be  a  meaningless  repetition  of  the  other  terms  used 
in  the  same  passages.  Obviously  it  is  used  in  some  narrower 
sense.  The  key  to  its  meaning  is  found  in  Acts  vi.  1,  where, 
within  Judaism,  the  "Hellenists"  are  distinguished  from  the 
"Hebrews,"  the  Hellenists  being  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion 
who  spoke  Greek,  and  the  Hebrews  the  Jews  of  Palestine  who 
spoke  Aramaic.  In  Phil.  iii.  5,  therefore,  Paul  declares  that  he 
was  an  Aramaic-speaking  Jew  and  descended  from  Aramaic- 
speaking  Jews ;  Aramaic  was  used  in  his  boyhood  home,  and  the 
Palestinian  tradition  was  preserved.  This  testimony  is  not 
contrary  to  what  was  said  above  about  Paul's  use  of  the  Greek 
language — not  improbably  Paul  used  both  Aramaic  and  Greek 
in  childhood — but  it  does  contradict  all  those  modern  repre- 
sentations which  make  Paul  fundamentally  a  Jew  of  the  Dis- 
persion. Though  he  was  born  in  Tarsus,  he  was,  in  the  essen- 
tial character  of  his  family  tradition,  a  Jew  of  Palestine. 

Even  more  important  is  the  assertion,  found  in  the  same 
verse  in  Philippians,  that  Paul  was  "as  touching  the  law  a 
Pharisee."  Conceivably,  indeed,  it  might  be  argued  that  his 
Pharisaism  was  not  derived  from  his  boyhood  home,  but  was 
acquired  later.  But  surely  it  requires  no  excessively  favorable 
estimate  of  Acts  to  give  credence  to  the  assertion  in  Acts 

1  Compare  Mommsen,  "Die  Rechtsverhaltnisse  des   Apostels  Paulus,"  in 
Zeitschrift  fur  die  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  ii,  1901,  pp.  88-96. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  47 

xxiii.  6  that  Paul  was  not  only  a  Pharisee  but  the  "son  of 
Pharisees";  and  it  is  exceedingly  unlikely  that  this  phrase 
refers,  as  Lightfoot  *  suggested,  to  teachers  rather  than  to 
ancestors.  For  when  Paul  says  in  Gal.  i.  14  that  he  advanced 
in  the  Jews'  religion  beyond  many  of  his  contemporaries,  be- 
ing more  exceedingly  zealous  for  his  paternal  traditions,  it  is 
surely  natural,  whatever  interpretation  may  be  given  to  the 
word  "paternal,"  to  find  a  reference  to  the  Pharisaic  traditions 
cultivated  in  his  boyhood  home. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence,  therefore,  for  supposing 
that  Paul  spent  his  early  years  in  an  atmosphere  of  "liberal 
Judaism" — a  Judaism  really  though  unconsciously  hospitable 
to  pagan  notions  and  predisposed  to  relax  the  strict  require- 
ments of  the  Law  and  break  down  the  barrier  that  separated 
Israel  from  the  Gentile  world.  Whether  such  a  liberal  Judaism 
even  existed  in  Tarsus  we  do  not  know.  At  any  rate,  if  it  did 
exist,  the  household  of  Paul's  father  was  not  in  sympathy  with 
it.  Surely  the  definite  testimony  of  Paul  himself  is  here  worth 
more  than  all  modern  conjectures.  And  Paul  himself  declares 
that  he  was  in  language  and  in  spirit  a  Jew  of  Palestine  rather 
than  of  the  Dispersion,  and  as  touching  the  Law  a  Pharisee. 

According  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  Paul  went  at  an  early  age 
to  Jerusalem,  received  instruction  there  from  Gamaliel,  the 
famous  rabbi,  and  finally,  just  before  his  conversion,  perse- 
cuted the  Jerusalem  Church  (Acts  xxii.  3;  vii.  58-viii.  1 ;  ix.  1, 
etc.).  In  recent  years,  this  entire  representation  has  been 
questioned.  It  has  been  maintained  by  Mommsen,2  Bous- 
set3,  Heitmuller,4  and  Loisy  5  that  Paul  never  was  in  Jeru- 
salem before  his  conversion.  That  he  persecuted  the  Church 
is,  of  course,  attested  unequivocally  by  his  own  Epistles,  but 
the  persecution,  it  is  said,  really  took  place  only  in  such  cities 
as  Damascus,  and  not  at  all  in  Palestine. 

This  elimination  of  the  early  residence  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem 

1  On  Phil.  iii.  5. 

2  Op.  tit.,  pp.  85 f. 

*Kyrios  Christos,  1913,  p.  92.  Bousset's  doubt  with  regard  to  the  early 
Jerusalem  residence  of  Paul  extended,  explicitly  at  least,  only  to  the 
persecution  in  Jerusalem,  and  it  was  a  doubt  merely,  not  a  positive  denial. 
In  his  supplementary  work  he  has  admitted  that  his  doubt  was  unjustified 
(Jesus  der  Herr,  1916,  p.  31). 

4"Zum  Problem  Paulus  und  Jesus,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  die  neutestament- 
liche  Wissenschaft,  xiii,  1912,  pp.  320-337. 

*  L'tpitre  cmx  Galates,  1916,  pp.  68-73;  Les  my  stores  paiens  et  le  mystere 
Chretien,  1919,  pp.  317-320. 


48  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

is  no  mere  by-product  of  a  generally  skeptical  attitude  toward 
the  Book  of  Acts,  but  is  important  for  the  entire  reconstruction 
of  early  Christian  history  which  Bousset  and  Heitmiiller  and 
Loisy  propose;  it  is  made  to  assist  in  explaining  the  origin 
of  the  Pauline  Christology.  Paul  regarded  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
supernatural  person,  come  to  earth  for  the  redemption  of 
men;  and  toward  this  divine  Christ  he  assumed  a  distinctly 
religious  attitude.  How  could  he  have  formed  such  a  concep- 
tion of  a  human  being  who  had  died  but  a  few  years  before? 
If  he  had  been  separated  from  Jesus  by  several  generations, 
so  that  the  nimbus  of  distance  and  mystery  would  have  had 
time  to  form  about  the  figure  of  the  Galilean  prophet,  then  his 
lofty  conception  of  Jesus  might  be  explained.  But  as  a  matter 
of  fact  he  was  actually  a  contemporary  of  the  Jesus  whose 
simple  human  traits  he  obscured.  How  could  the  "smell  of 
earth"  have  been  so  completely  removed  from  the  figure  of 
the  Galilean  teacher  that  He  could  actually  be  regarded  by  one 
of  His  contemporaries  as  a  divine  Redeemer?  The  question 
could  perhaps  be  more  easily  answered  if  Paul,  before  his  lofty 
conception  of  Christ  was  fully  formed,  never  came  into  any 
connection  with  those  who  had  seen  Jesus  subject  to  the  petty 
limitations  of  human  life.  Thus  the  elimination  of  the  early 
Jerusalem  residence  of  Paul,  by  putting  a  geographical  if 
not  a  temporal  gulf  between  Jesus  and  Paul,  is  thought  to 
make  the  formation  of  the  Pauline  Christology  more  compre- 
hensible. Peter  and  the  original  disciples,  it  is  thought,  never 
could  have  separated  Jesus  so  completely  from  the  limitations 
of  ordinary  humanity;  the  simple  memory  of  Galilean  days 
would  in  their  case  have  been  an  effective  barrier  against 
Christological  speculation.  But  Paul  was  subject  to  no  such 
limitation;  having  lived  far  away  from  Palestine,  in  the  com- 
pany, for  the  most  part,  of  those  who  like  himself  had  never 
seen  Jesus,  he  was  free  to  transpose  to  the  Galilean  teacher 
attributes  which  to  those  who  had  known  the  real  Jesus  would 
have  seemed  excessive  or  absurd. 

Before  examining  the  grounds  upon  which  this  elimination 
of  Paul's  early  Jerusalem  residence  is  based,  it  may  first  be 
observed  that  even  such  heroic  measures  do  not  really  bring 
about  the  desired  result;  even  this  radical  rewriting  of  the 
story  of  Paul's  boyhood  and  youth  will  not  serve  to  explain 
on  naturalistic  principles  the  origin  of  the  Pauline  Christology. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  4& 

Even  if  before  his  conversion  Paul  got  no  nearer  to  Jerusalem 
than  Damascus,  it  still  remains  true  that  after  his  conversion 
he  conferred  with  Peter  and  lived  in  more  or  less  extended  in- 
tercourse with  Palestinian  disciples.  The  total  lack  of  any 
evidence  of  a  conflict  between  the  Christology  of  Paul  and  the 
views  of  those  who  had  walked  and  talked  with  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth remains,  for  any  naturalistic  reconstruction,  a  puzzling 
fact.  Even  without  the  early  Jerusalem  residence,  Paul  re- 
mains too  near  to  Jesus  both  temporally  and  geographically 
to  have  formed  a  conception  of  Him  entirely  without  reference 
to  the  historical  person.  Even  with  their  radical  treatment 
of  the  Book  of  Acts,  therefore,  Bousset  and  Heitmuller  have 
not  succeeded  at  all  in  explaining  how  the  Pauline  Christology 
ever  came  to  be  attached  to  the  Galilean  prophet. 

But  is  the  elimination  of  the  early  Jerusalem  residence  of 
Paul  historically  justifiable?  Mere  congruity  with  a  plausible 
theory  of  development  will  not  serve  to  justify  it.  For  the 
Jerusalem  residence  is  strongly  attested  by  the  Book  of  Acts. 
The  testimony  of  Acts  can  no  longer  be  ruled  out  except  for 
very  weighty  reasons;  the  history  of  recent  criticism  has  on 
the  whole  exhibited  the  rise  of  a  more  and  more  favorable 
estimate  of  the  book.  And  in  the  case  of  the  early  Jerusalem 
residence  of  Paul  the  testimony  is  so  insistent  and  so  closely 
connected  with  lifelike  details  that  the  discrediting  of  it  in- 
volves an  exceedingly  radical  skepticism.  The  presence  of 
Paul  at  the  stoning  of  Stephen  is  narrated  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
in  a  concrete  way  which  bears  every  mark  of  trustworthiness ; 
the  connection  of  Paul  with  Gamaliel  is  what  might  have  been 
expected  in  view  of  the  self -testimony  of  the  apostle;  the  ac- 
count of  Paul's  vision  in  the  Temple  (Acts  xxii.  17-21)  is 
based,  in  a  manner  which  is  psychologically  very  natural,  upon 
the  fact  of  Paul's  persecuting  activity  in  Jerusalem ;  the  pres- 
ence of  Paul's  sister's  son  in  Jerusalem,  attested  in  a  part  of 
the  narrative  of  which  the  essential  historicity  must  be  uni- 
versally admitted  (Acts  xxiii.  16-22),  suggests  that  family 
connections  may  have  facilitated  Paul's  residence  in  the  city. 
Finally,  the  geographical  details  of  the  three  narratives  of 
the  conversion,  which  place  the  event  on  a  journey  of  Paul 
from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus,  certainly  look  as  though  they 
were  founded  upon  genuine  tradition.  One  of  the  details — 
the  place  of  the  conversion  itself — is  confirmed  in  a  purely 


50  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

incidental  way  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  the  reader 
has  the  impression  that  if  Paul  had  happened  to  introduce 
other  details  in  the  Epistles  the  rest  of  the  narrative  in  Acts 
would  have  been  similarly  confirmed.  Except  for  Paul's  inci- 
dental reference  to  Damascus  in  Gal.  i.  17,  the  conversion 
might  have  been  put  by  Heitmiiller  and  others  in  a  place  even 
more  conveniently  remote  than  Damascus  from  the  scene  of 
Jesus'  earthly  labors.  But  the  incidental  confirmation  of  Acts 
at  this  point  raises  a  distinct  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
account  as  a  whole.  The  main  trend  of  modern  criticism  has 
been  favorable  on  the  whole  to  the  tradition  embodied  in  the 
accounts  of  the  conversion;  it  is  a  very  extreme  form  of  skep- 
ticism which  rejects  the  whole  framework  of  the  tradition  by 
eliminating  the  journey  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  early  Jerusalem 
residence  of  Paul  stood  absolutely  firm  in  the  tradition  used 
by  the  author  of  Acts ;  the  author  has  taken  it  as  a  matter  of 
course  and  woven  it  in  with  his  narrative  at  many  points. 
Such  a  tradition  certainly  cannot  be  lightly  rejected;  the 
burden  of  proof  clearly  rests  upon  those  who  would  deny  its 
truthworthiness. 

The  only  definite  proof  which  is  forthcoming  is  found  in 
Gal.  i.  22,  where  Paul  says  that  after  his  departure  for  Syria 
and  Cilicia,  three  years  after  his  conversion,  he  was  "unknown 
by  face  to  the  churches  of  Judaea  which  are  in  Christ."  If 
he  had  engaged  in  active  persecution  of  those  churches,  it  is 
argued,  how  could  he  have  been  personally  unknown  to  them? 

By  this  argument  a  tremendous  weight  is  hung  upon  one 
verse.  And,  rightly  interpreted,  the  verse  will  not  bear  the 
weight  at  all.  In  Gal.  i.  22,  Paul  is  not  speaking  so  much 
of  what  took  place  before  the  departure  for  Syria  and  Cilicia, 
as  of  the  condition  which  prevailed  at  the  time  of  that  depar- 
ture and  during  the  immediately  ensuing  period;  he  is  simply 
drawing  attention  to  the  significance  for  his  argument  of  the 
departure  from  Jerusalem.  Certainly  he  would  not  have  been 
able  to  speak  as  he  does  if  before  he  left  Jerusalem  he  had 
had  extended  intercourse  with  the  Judaean  churches,  but  when 
he  says  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Judaean  churches  about  him 
in  the  period  just  succeeding  his  departure  from  Jerusalem 
was  a  hearsay  knowledge  merely,  it  would  have  been  pedantic 
for  him  to  think  about  the  question  whether  some  of  the  mem- 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  51 

bers  of  those  churches  had  or  had  not  seen  him  years  before 
as  a  persecutor. 

Furthermore,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  word  "Judaea" 
in  Gal.  i.  22  includes  Jerusalem  at  all.  In  Mark  iii.  7,  8,  for 
example,  "Jerusalem"  is  clearly  not  included  in  "Judaea," 
but  is  distinguished  from  it;  "Judaea"  means  the  country 
outside  of  the  capital.  It  may  well  be  so  also  in  Gal.  i.  22; 
and  if  so,  then  the  verse  does  not  exclude  a  personal  acquain- 
tance of  Paul  with  the  Jerusalem  Church.  But  even  if 
"Judsea"  is  not  used  so  as  to  exclude  the  capital,  still  Paul's 
words  would  be  natural  enough.  That  the  Jerusalem  Church 
formed  an  exception  to  the  general  assertion  was  suggested 
by  the  account  of  the  visit  in  Jerusalem  immediately  preced- 
ing, and  was  probably  well  known  to  his  Galatian  readers. 
All  that  Paul  means  is  that  he  went  away  to  Syria  and  Cilicia 
without  becoming  acquainted  generally  with  the  churches  of 
Judaea.  It  is  indeed  often  said  that  since  the  whole  point 
of  Paul's  argument  in  Galatians  was  to  show  his  lack  of  con- 
tact with  the  pillars  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  his  acquaintance 
or  lack  of  acquaintance  with  the  churches  of  Judaea  outside 
of  Jerusalem  was  unworthy  of  mention,  so  that  he  must  at 
least  be  including  Jerusalem  when  he  speaks  of  Judaea.  But 
this  argument  is  not  decisive.  If,  as  is  altogether  probable, 
the  apostles  except  Peter  were  out  of  the  city  at  the  time  of 
Paul's  visit,  and  were  engaging  in  missionary  work  in  Judaean 
churches,  then  acquaintance  with  the  Judaean  churches  would 
have  meant  intercourse  with  the  apostles,  so  that  it  was  very 
much  to  the  point  for  Paul  to  deny  that  he  had  had  such 
acquaintance.  Of  course,  this  whole  argument  against  the 
early  Jerusalem  residence  of  Paul,  based  on  Gal.  i.  22,  involves 
a  rejection  of  the  account  which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives  of 
the  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  three  years  after  his  conversion. 
If  Gal.  i.  22  means  that  Paul  was  unknown  by  sight  to  the 
Jerusalem  Church,  then  he  could  not  have  gone  in  and  out 
among  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem  as  Acts  ix.  28  represents, 
but  must  have  been  in  strict  hiding  when  he  was  in  the  city. 
Such  is  the  account  of  the  matter  which  is  widely  prevalent  in 
recent  years.  Not  even  so  much  correction  of  Acts  is  at  all 
required  by  a  correct  understanding  of  Gal.  i.  22.  But  it  is 
a  still  more  unjustifiable  use  of  that  verse  when  it  is  made  to 
exclude  even  the  persecuting  activity  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem. 


52  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

If,  however,  the  words  of  Galatians  are  really  to  be  taken 
in  the  strictest  and  most  literal  sense,  what  is  to  be  done  with 
Gal.  i.  23,  where  (immediately  after  the  words  which  have  just 
been  discussed)  Paul  says  that  the  churches  of  Judaea  were 
receiving  the  report,  "He  that  persecuted  us  formerly  is  now 
preaching  as  a  gospel  the  faith  which  formerly  he  laid  waste"? 
What  is  meant  by  the  pronoun  "us"  in  this  verse?  Conceivably 
it  might  be  taken  in  a  broad  sense,  as  referring  to  all  disciples 
wherever  found ;  conceivably,  therefore,  the  persecution  referred 
to  by  the  Judaean  disciples  might  be  persecution  of  their 
brethren  in  the  faith  in  Tarsus  or  Damascus.  But  that  is  not 
the  kind  of  interpretation  which  has  just  been  applied  to  the 
preceding  verse,  and  upon  which  such  a  vast  structure  has 
been  reared.  It  may  well  be  urged  against  Heitmiiller  and 
those  like  him  that  if  Paul's  words  are  to  be  taken  so  strictly 
in  one  verse  they  should  be  taken  in  the  same  way  in  the  other ; 
if  the  "Judaea"  and  "unknown  by  face"  of  verse  22  are  to 
be  taken  so  strictly,  then  the  "us"  of  verse  23  should  also  be 
taken  strictly,  and  in  that  case  Paul  is  made  to  contradict 
himself,  which  of  course  is  absurd.  Verse  23  certainly  does 
not  fully  confirm  the  representation  of  Acts  about  the  perse- 
cuting activity  of  Paul  in  Judaea,  but  at  any  rate  it  tends  to 
confirm  that  representation  at  least  as  strongly  as  verse  22 
tends  to  discredit  it.1 

Thus  the  early  Jerusalem  residence  of  Paul  is  strongly 
attested  by  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  is  thoroughly  in  harmony 
with  everything  that  Paul  says  about  his  Pharisaic  past.  It 
is  not  surprising  that  Bousset  has  now  receded  from  his  orig- 
inal position  and  admits  that  Paul  was  in  Jerusalem  before 
his  conversion  and  engaged  in  persecution  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church. 

That  admission  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  an  ac- 
ceptance of  all  that  the  Book  of  Acts  says  about  the  Jerusalem 
period  in  Paul's  life,  particularly  all  that  it  says  about  his 
having  been  a  disciple  of  Gamaliel.  But  the  decisive  point 
has  been  gained.  If  the  entire  account  of  the  early  Jerusalem 
residence  of  Paul  is  not  ruled  out  by  the  testimony  of  his  own 
Epistles,  then. there  is  at  least  no  decisive  objection  against 
the  testimony  of  Acts  with  regard  to  the  details.  Certainly 

1  Compare   Wellhausen,  Kritische   Analyse   der   Apostelgeschichte,   1914, 
p.  16, 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  53 

the  common  opinion  to  the  effect  that  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem 
to  receive  rabbinical  training  is  admirably  in  accord  with 
everything  that  he  says  in  his  Epistles  about  his  zeal  for  the 
Law.  It  is  also  in  accord  with  his  habits  of  thought  and  ex- 
pression, which  were  transformed  and  glorified,  rather  than 
destroyed,  by  his  Christian  experience.  The  decision  about 
every  detail  of  course  depends  ultimately  upon  the  particular 
conclusion  which  the  investigator  may  have  reached  with  re- 
gard to  the  Book  of  Acts.  If  that  book  was  written  by  a 
companion  of  Paul — an  opinion  which  is  gaining  ground  even 
in  circles  which  were  formerly  hostile — then  there  is  every 
reason  to  suppose  that  Paul  was  brought  up  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  feet  of  Gamaliel  (Acts  xxii.  3).  Some  important  questions 
indeed  still  remain  unanswered,  even  with  full  acceptance  of 
the  Lucan  testimony.  It  can  never  be  determined,  for  ex- 
ample, at  exactly  what  age  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem.  The 
words,  "brought  up  in  this  city,"  in  Acts  xxii.  3  might  seem 
to  suggest  that  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  in  early  childhood,  in 
which  case  his  birthplace  would  be  of  comparatively  little 
importance  in  his  preparation  for  his  lifework,  and  all  the 
elaborate  investigations  of  Tarsus,  so  far  as  they  are  intended 
to  shed  light  upon  the  environment  of  the  apostle  in  his  for- 
mative years,  would  become  valueless.  But  the  Greek  word 
"brought  up"  or  "nourished"  might  be  used  figuratively  in 
a  somewhat  flexible  way;  it  remains,  therefore,  perfectly  pos- 
sible that  Paul's  Jerusalem  training  began,  not  in  childhood, 
but  in  early  youth.  At  any  rate,  an  early  residence  in  Jeru- 
salem is  not  excluded  by  the  masterly  way  in  which  the  apostle 
uses  the  Greek  language.  It  must  always  be  remembered  that 
Palestine  in  the  first  century  was  a  bilingual  country ;  *  the 
presence  of  hosts  of  Greek-speaking  Jews  even  in  Jerusalem 
is  amply  attested,  for  example,  by  the  early  chapters  of  Acts. 
Moreover,  even  after  Paul's  Jerusalem  studies  had  begun,  his 
connection  with  Tarsus  need  not  have  been  broken  off.  The 
distance  between  the  two  cities  was  considerable  (some  four 
or  five  hundred  miles),  but  travel  in  those  days  was  safe  and 
easy.  A  period  of  training  in  Jerusalem  may  have  been  fol- 
lowed by  a  long  residence  at  Tarsus. 

»See  Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3te  Aufl.,  i,  1906,  pp. 
24-32,  39-47  (English  Translation,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 
°-A  Ed.,  1917,  i,  pp.  34-46,  57-66). 


54  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

At  this  point,  an  interesting  question  arises,  which,  how- 
ever, can  never  be  answered  with  any  certainty.  Did  Paul 
ever  see  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion?  In  the  light  of  what  has 
just  been  established  about  the  outline  of  Paul's  life,  an  affirma- 
tive answer  might  seem  to  be  natural.  Paul  was  in  Jerusalem 
both  before  and  after  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus — before  it 
when  he  was  being  "brought  up"  in  Jerusalem,  and  after  it 
when  he  was  engaged  in  persecution  of  the  Jerusalem  Church. 
Where  was  he  during  the  interval?  Where  was  he  on  those 
occasions  when  Jesus  visited  Jerusalem — especially  at  the  time 
of  that  last  Passover?  If  he  was  in  Jerusalem,  it  seems  prob- 
able that  he  would  have  seen  the  great  prophet,  whose  coming 
caused  such  a  stir  among  the  people.  And  that  he  was  in  the 
city  at  Passover  time  would  seem  natural  in  view  of  his  devo- 
tion to  the  Law.  But  the  matter  is  by  no  means  certain.  He 
may  have  returned  to  Tarsus,  in  the  manner  which  has  just 
been  suggested. 

The  question  could  only  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  actual 
testimony  either  in  Acts  or  in  the  Epistles.  One  verse  has 
often  been  thought  to  provide  such  testimony.  In  2  Cor.  v.  16, 
Paul  says,  "Even  if  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet 
now  we  know  him  so  no  longer."  Knowledge  of  Christ  after 
the  flesh  can  only  mean,  it  is  said,  knowledge  of  Him  by  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  senses,  in  the  manner  in  which  one  man  in 
ordinary  human  intercourse  knows  another.  That  kind  of 
knowledge,  Paul  says,  has  ceased  to  have  significance  for  the 
Christian  in  his  relation  to  other  men;  it  has  also  ceased  to 
have  significance  for  him  in  his  relation  to  Christ.  But  it  is 
that  kind  of  knowledge  which  Paul  seems  to  predicate  of  him- 
self, as  having  existed  in  a  previous  period  of  his  life.  He 
does  not  use  the  unreal  form  of  condition;  he  does  not  say, 
"Even  if  we  had  known  Christ  after  the  flesh  (though  as  a 
matter  of  fact  we  never  knew  Him  so  at  all),  yet  now  we  should 
know  Him  so  no  longer."  Apparently,  then,  when  he  says 
"if"  he  means  "although";  he  means  to  say,  "Although  we 
have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we  know  Him  so 
no  longer."  The  knowledge  of  Christ  after  the  flesh  is  thus 
put  as  an  actual  fact  in  Paul's  experience,  and  that  can  only 
mean  that  he  knew  Him  in  the  way  in  which  His  contempo- 
raries knew  Him  in  Galilee  and  in  Jerusalem,  a  way  which  in 
itself,  Paul  says,  was  altogether  without  spiritual  significance. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  55 

One  objection  to  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  that 
it  proves  too  much.  If  it  means  anything,  it  means  that  Paul 
had  extended  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus  before  the 
crucifixion;  for  if  Paul  merely  saw  Him  for  a  few  moments — 
for  example,  when  the  crowds  were  surging  about  Him  at  the 
time  of  the  last  Passover — he  could  hardly  be  said  to  have 
"known"  Him.  But,  for  obvious  reasons,  any  extended  inter- 
course between  Paul  and  Jesus  in  Palestine  is  exceedingly  im- 
probable. It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  look  for  some  other 
interpretation. 

Other  interpretations  undoubtedly  are  possible.  Some  of 
the  interpretations  that  have  been  proposed  must  indeed  be 
eliminated.  For  example,  Paul  cannot  possibly  be  contrasting 
a  former  immature  stage  of  his  Christian  experience  with  the 
present  mature  stage;  he  cannot  possibly  mean,  "Even  if  in 
the  first  period  after  my  conversion  I  had  a  low  view  of  Christ, 
which  made  of  Him  merely  the  son  of  David  and  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  yet  now  I  have  come  to  a  higher  conception  of  His 
divine  nature."  For  the  whole  point  of  the  passage  is  found 
in  the  sharp  break  which  comes  in  a  man's  experience  when 
he  appropriates  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Any 
consciousness  of  a  subsequent  revolution  in  the  thinking  of 
the  Christian  is  not  only  unsupported  anywhere  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  but  is  absolutely  excluded  by  the  present  passage. 
Another  interpretation  also  must  be  eliminated.  Paul  cannot 
possibly  be  contrasting  his  pre-Christian  notions  about  the 
Messiah  with  the  higher  knowledge  which  came  to  him  with 
his  conversion;  he  cannot  possibly  mean,  "Even  if  before  I 
knew  the  fulfillment  of  the  Messianic  promise  I  cherished  carnal 
notions  of  what  the  Messiah  was  to  be,  even  if  I  thought  of 
Him  merely  as  an  earthly  ruler  who  was  to  conquer  the  enemies 
of  Israel,  yet  now  I  have  come  to  have  a  loftier,  more  spiritual 
conception  of  Him."  For  the  word  "Christ,"  especially  with- 
out the  article,  can  hardly  here  be  anything  other  than  a 
proper  name,  and  must  refer  not  to  the  conception  of  Messiah- 
ship  but  to  the  concrete  person  of  Jesus.  But  another  inter- 
pretation remains.  The  key  to  it  is  found  in  the  flexible  use 
of  the  first  person  plural  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Undoubt- 
edly, the  "we"  of  the  whole  passage  in  which  2  Cor.  v.  16  is 
contained  refers  primarily  to  Paul  himself.  But,  especially 
in  2  Cor.  v.  16,  it  may  include  also  all  true  ambassadors  for 


56  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Christ  whose  principles  are  the  same  as  Paul's.  Among  such 
true  ambassadors  there  were  no  doubt  to  be  found  some  who 
had  known  Christ  by  way  of  ordinary  intercourse  in  Palestine. 
"But,"  says  Paul,  "even  if  some  of  us  have  known  Christ  in 
that  way,  we  know  him  so  no  longer."  This  interpretation  is 
linguistically  more  satisfactory,  perhaps,  than  that  which  ex- 
plains the  sentence  as  simply  a  more  vivid  way  of  presenting 
a  condition  contrary  to  fact.  "Granted,"  Paul  would  say 
according  to  this  interpretation,  "even  that  we  have  known 
Christ  according  to  the  flesh  (which  as  a  matter  of  fact  we 
have  not),  yet  now  we  know  him  so  no  longer."  But  our  inter- 
pretation really  amounts  to  almost  the  same  thing  so  far  as 
Paul  is  concerned.  At  any  rate,  the  passage  is  not  so  clear 
as  to  justify  any  certain  conclusions  about  Paul's  life  in 
Palestine;  it  does  not  clearly  imply  any  acquaintance  of  Paul 
with  Jesus  before  the  passion. 

If  such  acquaintance  is  to  be  established,  therefore,  it  must 
be  established  on  the  basis  of  other  evidence.  J.  Weiss  l  seeks 
to  establish  it  by  the  very  fact  of  Paul's  conversion.  Paul, 
Weiss  believes,  saw  a  vision  of  the  risen  Christ.  How  did  he 
know  that  the  figure  which  appeared  to  him  in  the  vision  was 
Jesus?  Why  did  he  not  think,  for  example,  merely  that  it 
was  the  Messiah,  who  according  to  one  strain  of  Jewish  Mes- 
sianic expectation  was  already  existent  in  heaven?  Apparently 
he  recognized  the  person  who  appeared  to  him  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  But  how  could  he  have  recognized  Him  as  Jesus 
unless  he  had  seen  Jesus  before? 

This  argument  depends,  of  course,  altogether  upon  the 
naturalistic  conception  of  the  conversion  of  Paul,  which  re- 
gards the  experience  as  an  hallucination.  In  the  account  of 
the  conversion  given  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  distinctly  said  that  far  from  recognizing  the  person  who 
appeared  to  him,  Paul  was  obliged  to  ask  the  question,  "Who 
art  thou,  Lord?"  and  then  received  the  answer,  "I  am  Jesus." 
Such  a  conversation  between  Paul  and  the  One  who  appeared 
to  him  is  perfectly  possible  if  there  was  a  real  appearance  of 
the  risen  Christ,  but  it  exceeds  the  ordinary  limits  of  halluci- 
nations. Weiss  has  therefore  merely  pointed  out  an  additional 
psychological  difficulty  in  explaining  the  experience  of  Paul 

1  Paulus  und  Jesus,  1909,  pp.  22,  23.    Compare  Ramsay,  The  Teaching  of 
Paul  in  Terms  of  the  Present  Day,  1914,  pp.  21-30. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  57 

as  an  hallucination,  a  difficulty  which,  on  naturalistic  prin- 
ciples, may  have  to  be  removed  by  the  assumption  that  Paul 
had  seen  Jesus  before  the  passion.  But  if  Jesus  really  ap- 
peared to  Paul  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  able  to  answer  his 
questions,  then  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Paul  recog- 
nized Him.  The  failure  of  Paul  to  recognize  Jesus  (according 
to  the  narrative  in  Acts)  does  not  indeed  positively  exclude 
such  previous  acquaintance;  the  two  disciples  on  the  road  to 
Emmaus,  for  example,  also  failed  to  recognize  the  Lord,  though 
they  had  been  acquainted  with  Him  before.  But,  at  any  rate, 
if  the  supernaturalistic  view  of  Paul's  conversion  be  accepted, 
the  experience  sheds  no  light  whatever  upon  any  previous  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  Jesus. 

Thus  there  is  no  clear  evidence  for  supposing  that  Paul 
saw  Jesus  before  the  passion.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  except  the  evidence  that  is  to  be 
found  in  the  silence  of  the  Epistles. 

The  argument  from  silence,  precarious  as  it  is,  must  here 
be  allowed  a  certain  amount  of  weight.  If  Paul  had  seen 
Jesus  before  the  crucifixion,  would  not  so  important  a  fact 
have  been  mentioned  somewhere  in  the  Epistles?  The  matter 
is  by  no  means  absolutely  clear;  a  brief  glimpse  of  Jesus  in 
the  days  of  His  flesh  would  perhaps  not  have  seemed  so  im- 
portant to  Paul,  in  view  of  the  richer  knowledge  which  came 
afterwards,  as  it  would  seem  to  us.  The  silence  of  the  Epistles 
does,  however,  render  improbable  any  extended  contact  between 
Paul  and  Jesus,  particularly  any  active  opposition  of  the 
youthful  Paul  toward  Jesus.  Paul  was  deeply  penitent  for 
having  persecuted  the  Church;  if  he  had  committed  the  more 
terrible  sin  of  having  helped  bring  the  Lord  Himself  to  the 
shameful  cross,  the  fact  would  naturally  have  appeared  in 
his  expressions  of  penitence.  Even  if  Paul  did  see  Jesus  in 
Palestine,  then,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  he  was  one  of 
those  who  cried  out  to  Pilate,  "Crucify  him,  crucify  him !" 

One  thing,  however,  is  certain.  If  Paul  never  saw  Jesus 
in  Palestine,  he  certainly  heard  about  Him.  The  ministry  of 
Jesus  caused  considerable  stir  both  in  Galilee  and  in  Jerusalem. 
These  things  were  not  done  in  a  corner.  The  appearance  of 
Jesus  at  the  last  Passover  aroused  the  passions  of  the  multi- 
tude, and  evidently  caused  the  deepest  concern  to  the  au- 
thorities. Even  one  who  was  indifferent  to  the  whole  matter 


58  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

could  hardly  have  helped  learning  something  of  the  content 
of  Jesus'  teaching,  and  the  main  outline  of  the  story  of  His 
death.  But  Paul,  at  least  at  a  time  only  a  very  few  years 
after  the  crucifixion,  was  not  indifferent ;  for  he  was  an  active 
persecutor.  If  he  was  in  Palestine  at  all  during  the  previous 
period,  his  interest  probably  began  then.  The  outlines  of 
Jesus'  life  and  death  were  known  to  friend  and  foe  alike,  and 
certainly  were  not  unknown  to  Paul  before  his  conversion,  at 
the  time  when  he  was  persecuting  the  Church.  It  is  only  a 
woeful  lack  of  historical  imagination  which  can  attribute  to 
Paul,  even  before  his  conversion,  a  total  ignorance  of  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus. 

The  opposite  error,  however,  is  even  more  serious.  If  Paul 
before  his  conversion  was  not  totally  ignorant  of  Jesus,  on 
the  other  hand  his  knowledge  only  increased  his  opposition  to 
Jesus  and  Jesus*  followers.  It  is  not  true  that  before  the 
conversion  Paul  was  gradually  coming  nearer  to  Christianity. 
Against  any  such  supposition  stands  the  explicit  testimony 
of  the  Epistles. 

Despite  that  testimony,  various  attempts  have  been  made 
to  trace  a  psychological  development  in  Paul  which  could 
have  led  to  the  conversion.  Paul  was  converted  through  a 
vision  of  the  risen  Christ.  According  to  the  supernaturalistic 
view  that  vision  was  a  "vision,"  not  in  any  specialized  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  but  in  its  original  etymological  meaning ;  Paul 
actually  "saw"  the  risen  Lord.  According  to  the  modern  nat- 
uralistic view,  which  rejects  any  direct  creative  interposition 
of  God  in  the  course  of  nature,  different  in  kind  from  His 
works  of  providence,  the  vision  was  produced  by  the  internal 
condition  of  the  subject,  accompanied  perhaps  by  favorable 
conditions  without — the  heat  of  the  sun  or  a  thunder  storm  or 
the  like.  But  was  the  condition  of  the  subject,  in  the  case  of 
Paul,  really  favorable  to  a  vision  of  the  risen  Christ?  If  the 
vision  of  Christ  was  an  hallucination,  as  it  is  held  to  be  by 
modern  naturalistic  historians,  how  may  the  genesis  of  this 
pathological  experience  be  explained? 

In  the  first  place,  a  certain  basis  for  the  experience  is  sought 
in  the  physical  organism  of  the  subject.  According  to  the 
Epistles,  it  is  said,  the  apostle  was  subject  to  a  recurrent 
malady ;  this  malady  is  spoken  of  in  2  Cor.  xii.  1-8  in  connec- 
tion with  visions  and  revelations.  In  Gal.  iv.  14,  where  it  is 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  59 

said  that  the  Galatians  did  not  "spit  out"  when  the  apostle 
was  with  them,  an  allusion  is  sometimes  discovered  to  the 
ancient  custom  of  spitting  to  avoid  contagion.  A  combina- 
tion of  this  passage  with  the  one  in  2  Corinthians  is  thought 
to  establish  a  diagnosis  of  epilepsy,  the  effort  being  made  to 
show  that  "spitting  out"  was  particularly  prevalent  in  the 
case  of  that  disease.  The  visions  then  become  an  additional 
symptom  of  the  epileptic  seizures.1 

But  the  diagnosis  rests  upon  totally  insufficient  data.  The 
visions  are  not  regarded  in  2  Corinthians  as  part  of  the  buf- 
f etings  of  the  angel  of  Satan ;  on  the  contrary,  the  two  things 
are  sharply  separated  in  Paul's  mind;  he  rejoices  in  the 
visions,  but  prays  the  Lord  that  the  buffetings  may  cease. 
It  is  not  even  said  that  the  visions  and  the  buffetings  came 
close  together;  there  is  no  real  basis  for  the  view  that  the 
buffetings  consisted  in  nervous  exhaustion  following  the  visions. 
In  Gal.  iv.  14,  the  "spitting  out"  is  probably  to  be  taken 
figuratively,  and  the  object  is  "your  temptation  in  my  flesh." 
The  meaning  then  is  simply,  "You  did  not  reject  me  or  spue  me 
out" ;  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  custom  of  "spitting  out" 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  contagion.  It  is  unnecessary, 
therefore,  to  examine  the  elaborate  argument  of  Krenkel  by 
which  he  sought  to  show  that  epilepsy  was  particularly  the 
disease  against  which  spitting  was  practised  as  a  prophylactic 
measure. 

There  is  therefore  absolutely  no  evidence  to  show  that  Paul 
was  an  epileptic,  unless  the  very  fact  of  his  having  visions  be 
thought  to  furnish  such  evidence.  But  such  a  use  of  the 
visions  prejudges  the  great  question  at  issue,  which  concerns 
the  objective  validity  of  Paul's  religious  convictions.  Further- 
more, the  fact  should  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  Paul  dis- 
tinguished the  visions  very  sharply  from  the  experience  which 
he  had  near  Damascus,  when  he  saw  the  Lord.  The  visions 
are  spoken  of  in  2  Corinthians  apparently  with  reluctance, 
as  something  which  concerned  the  apostle  alone ;  the  Damascus 
experience  was  part  of  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  had  a  fundamental  place  in  the  apostle's  mis- 
sionary preaching.  All  efforts  to  break  down  this  distinction 
have  failed.  The  apostle  regarded  the  Damascus  experience 

1  See  Krenkel,  Beitrdge  zur  Aufhellung  der  Oeschichte  und  der  Brief e 
des  Apostels  Paulus,  1890,  pp.  47-125. 


60  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

as  unique — not  a  mystery  like  the  experiences  which  are  men- 
tioned in  2  Corinthians,  but  a  plain,  palpable  fact  capable 
of  being  understood  by  all. 

But  if  the  Damascus  experience  is  to  be  regarded  as  an 
hallucination,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  exhibit  a  basis  for  it  in  the 
physical  weakness  of  the  apostle.  Even  if  Paul  was  constitu- 
tionally predisposed  to  hallucinations,  the  experience  of  this 
particular  hallucination  must  be  shown  to  be  possible.  The 
challenge  has  often  been  accepted  by  modern  historians.  It  is 
maintained  that  the  elements  of  Paul's  new  conviction  must  have 
been  forming  gradually  in  his  mind ;  the  Damascus  experience, 
it  is  said,  merely  brought  to  light  what  was  really  already  pres- 
ent. In  this  way,  the  enormous  disparity  between  effect  and 
cause  is  thought  to  be  removed;  the  untold  benefits  of  Paulin- 
ism  are  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  due  to  the  fortunate  chance 
of  an  hallucination,  induced  by  the  weakness  of  the  apostle 
and  the  heat  of  the  desert  sun,  but  rather  to  a  spiritual  de- 
velopment which  the  hallucination  merely  revealed.  Thus  the 
modern  view  of  Paul's  conversion,  it  is  thought,  may  face 
bravely  the  scorn  of  Beyschlag,  who  exclaimed,  when  speaking 
of  the  naturalistic  explanation  of  Paul's  vision,  "Oh  blessed 
drop  of  blood  .  .  .  which  by  pressing  at  the  right  moment 
upon  the  brain  of  Paul,  produced  such  a  moral  wonder." 
The  drop  of  blood,  it  is  said,  or  whatever  may  have  been  the 
physical  basis  of  the  Damascus  experience,  did  not  produce 
the  wonders  of  the  Pauline  gospel;  it  merely  brought  into  the 
sphere  of  consciousness  a  psychological  process  which  had 
really  been  going  on  before. 

The  existence  of  such  a  psychological  process,  by  which 
the  apostle  was  coming  nearer  to  Christ,  is  sometimes  thought 
to  receive  documentary  support  in  one  verse  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  Acts  xxvi.  14,  the  risen  Christ  is  represented  as 
saying  to  Paul,  "It  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the  goads." 
According  to  this  verse,  it  is  said,  Paul  had  been  resisting  a 
better  conviction,  gradually  forming  in  his  mind,  that  the 
disciples  might  be  right  about  Jesus  and  he  might  be  wrong; 
that,  it  is  said,  was  the  goad  which  was  really  driving  him. 
He  had  indeed  been  resisting  vigorously;  he  had  been  stifling 
his  doubts  by  more  and  more  feverish  activity  in  persecution. 

1  Beyschlag,    "Die    Bekehrung    des    Apostels    Paulus,"    in    Theologische 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  xxxvii,  1864,  p.  241. 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  61 

But  the  resistance  had  not  really  brought  him  peace;  the  goad 
was  really  there.  And  at  last,  near  Damascus,  the  resistance 
was  overcome;  the  subconscious  conviction  which  had  brought 
tumult  into  his  soul  was  at  last  allowed  to  come  to  the  surface 
and  rule  his  conscious  life. 

At  this  point,  the  historian  is  in  grave  danger  of  becoming 
untrue  to  his  own  critical  principles.  Attention  to  the  Book 
of  Acts,  it  has  been  maintained,  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  color 
the  interpretation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  which  are  the  pri- 
mary sources  of  information.  But  here  the  procedure  is  re- 
versed. In  the  interests  of  a  verse  in  Acts,  standing,  more- 
over, in  a  context  which  on  naturalistic  principles  cannot  be 
regarded  as  historical,  the  clear  testimony  of  the  Epistles  is 
neglected.  For  Paul  was  certainly  not  conscious  of  any  goad 
which  before  his  conversion  was  forcing  him  into  the  new  faith ; 
he  knows  nothing  of  doubts  which  assailed  him  during  the 
period  of  his  activity  in  persecution.  On  the  contrary,  the 
very  point  of  the  passage  in  Galatians,  where  he  alludes  to  his 
persecuting  activity,  is  the  suddenness  of  his  conversion.  Far 
from  gradually  coming  nearer  to  Christ  he  was  in  the  very 
midst  of  his  zeal  for  the  Law  when  Christ  called  him.  The 
purpose  of  the  passage  is  to  show  that  his  gospel  came  to  him 
without  human  intermediation.  Before  the  conversion,  he 
says,  there  was  of  course  no  human  intermediation,  since  he 
was  an  active  persecutor.  He  could  not  have  spoken  in  this 
way  if  before  the  conversion  he  had  already  become  half  con- 
vinced that  those  whom  he  was  persecuting  were  right.  More- 
over, throughout  the  Epistles  there  appears  in  the  apostle 
not  the  slightest  consciousness  of  his  having  acted  against 
better  convictions  when  he  persecuted  the  Church.  In  1  Tim. 
i.  13  he  distinctly  says  that  he  carried  on  the  persecution  in 
ignorance;  and  even  if  Timothy  be  regarded  as  post-Pauline, 
the  silence  of  the  other  epistles  at  least  points  in  the  same 
direction.  Paul  was  deeply  penitent  for  having  persecuted 
the  Church  of  God,  but  apparently  he  did  not  lay  to  his  charge 
the  black  sin  of  having  carried  on  the  persecution  in  the  face 
of  better  convictions.  When  he  laid  the  Church  waste  he 
thought  he  was  doing  God  service.  In  the  very  midst  of  his 
mad  persecuting  activity,  he  says,  apart  from  any  teaching 
from  men — apart,  we  may  certainly  infer,  from  any  favorable 
impressions  formed  in  his  mind — the  Lord  appeared  to  him 


62  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

and  gave  him  his  gospel.  Paul  stakes  everything  upon  the 
evidential  value  of  the  appearance,  which  was  able  suddenly 
to  overcome  an  altogether  hostile  attitude.  Such  is  the  self- 
testimony  of  the  apostle.  It  rests  as  a  serious  weight  upon 
all  attempts  at  making  the  conversion  the  result  of  a  psycho- 
logical process. 

Certainly  the  passage  in  Acts  will  not  help  to  bear  the 
weight.  When  the  risen  Christ  says  to  Paul,  "It  is  hard  for 
thee  to  kick  against  the  goads,"  He  need  not  mean  at  all  that 
the  presence  of  the  goad  had  been  known  to  Paul  before  that 
hour.  The  meaning  may  be  simply  that  the  will  of  Christ  is 
resistless;  all  opposition  is  in  vain,  the  appointed  hour  of 
Christ  has  arrived.  Conscious  opposition  on  the  part  of  Paul 
to  a  better  conviction  is  certainly  not  at  all  implied.  No 
doubt  Paul  was  really  miserable  when  he  was  a  persecutor; 
all  activity  contrary  to  the  plan  of  Christ  brings  misery.  But 
that  he  had  the  slightest  inkling  of  the  source  of  his  misery 
or  even  of  the  fact  of  it  need  not  be  supposed.  It  is  even  pos- 
sible that  the  "hardness"  of  resistance  to  the  goad  is  to  be 
found  only  in  the  very  moment  of  the  conversion.  "All  re- 
sistance," says  the  risen  Christ,  "all  hesitation,  is  as  hopeless 
as  for  the  ox  to  kick  against  the  goad ;  instant  obedience  alone 
is  in  place." 

The  weight  of  the  apostle's  own  testimony  is  therefore  in 
no  sense  removed  by  Acts  xxvi.  14.  That  testimony  is  un- 
equivocally opposed  to  all  attempts  at  exhibiting  a  psycho- 
logical process  culminating  in  the  conversion.  These  attempts, 
however,  because  of  the  importance  which  has  been  attributed 
to  them,  must  now  be  examined.  In  general,  they  are  becoming 
less  and  less  elaborate;  contemporary  scholars  are  usually 
content  to  dismiss  the  psychological  problem  of  the  conversion 
with  a  few  general  observations  about  the  secret  of  personality, 
or,  at  the  most,  a  brief  word  about  the  possible  condition  of 
the  apostle's  mind.  Since  the  direct  interposition  of  the  risen 
Christ  is  rejected,  it  is  held  that  there  must  have  been  some 
psychological  preparation  for  the  Damascus  experience,  but 
what  that  preparation  was  remains  hidden,  it  is  said,  in  the 
secret  places  of  the  soul,  which  no  psychological  analysis  can 
ever  fully  reveal. 

If,  however,  the  problem  is  not  thus  to  be  dismissed  as 
insoluble,  no  unanimity  has  been  achieved  among  those  who 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  63 

attempt  a  solution.  Two  principal  lines  of  solution  of  the 
problem  may  perhaps  be  distinguished — that  which  begins  with 
the  objective  evidence  as  it  presented  itself  to  the  persecutor, 
and  that  which  starts  with  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  and 
the  persecutor's  own  sense  of  need.  The  former  line  was  fol- 
lowed by  Holsten,  whose  monographs  still  constitute  the  most 
elaborate  exposition  of  the  psychological  process  supposed 
to  lie  back  of  the  conversion.1  According  to  Holsten,  the 
process  centered  in  the  consideration  of  the  Cross  of  Christ. 
That  consideration  of  course  resulted  at  first  in  an  attitude 
of  hostility  on  the  part  of  Paul.  The  Cross  was  a  shameful 
thing;  the  proclamation  of  a  crucified  Messiah  appeared, 
therefore,  to  the  devout  Pharisee  as  an  outrageous  blasphemy. 
But  the  disciples  represented  the  Cross  as  in  accordance  with 
the  will  of  God,  and  supported  their  contention  by  the  evidence 
for  the  resurrection;  the  resurrection  was  made  to  overcome 
the  offense  of  the  Cross.  But  against  the  evidence  for  the 
resurrection,  Holsten  believes,  Paul  was  helpless,  the  possibility 
of  resurrection  being  fully  recognized  in  his  Pharisaic  training. 
What  then  if  the  resurrection  really  vindicated  the  claims  of 
Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah?  Paul  was  by  no  means  convinced, 
Holsten  believes,  that  such  was  the  case.  But  the  possibility 
was  necessarily  in  his  mind,  if  only  for  the  purposes  of  refuta- 
tion. At  this  point  Paul  began  to  advance,  according  to 
Holsten,  beyond  the  earlier  disciples.  On  the  assumption  that 
the  resurrection  really  did  vindicate  the  claims  of  Jesus,  the 
Cross  would  have  to  be  explained.  But  an  explanation  lay 
ready  to  hand,  and  Paul  applied  this  explanation  with  a  thor- 
oughness which  the  earlier  disciples  had  not  attained.  The 
earlier  disciples  removed  the  offense  of  the  Cross  by  repre- 
senting the  Cross  as  part  of  the  plan  of  God  for  the  Messiah; 
Paul  exhibited  the  meaning  of  that  plan  much  more  clearly 
than  they.  He  exhibited  the  meaning  of  the  Cross  by  apply- 
ing to  it  the  category  of  vicarious  suffering,  which  could  be 
found,  for  example,  in  Isaiah  liii.  At  this  point  the  pre- 
Christian  development  of  Paul  was  over.  The  Pauline  "gnosis 

1  Holsten,  Zum  Evanyelium  des  Paulus  und  des  Petrus,  1868.  Against 
Holsten,  see  Beyschlag,  "Die  Bekehrung  des  Apostels  Paulus,  mit  beson- 
derer  Riicksicht  auf  die  Erklarungsversuche  von  Baur  und  Holsten,"  in 
Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  xxxvii,  1864,  pp.  197-264;  "Die  Visions- 
hypothese  in  ihrer  neuesten  Begriindung.  Eine  Duplik  gegen  D.  Holsten," 
ibid.,  xliii,  1870,  pp.  7-50,  189-263. 


64  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  Cross"  was  already  formed.  Of  course,  before  the  con- 
version it  was  to  Paul  entirely  a  matter  of  supposition.  On 
the  supposition,  still  regarded  as  false,  that  the  resurrection 
had  really  taken  place,  the  Cross,  far  from  being  an  offense, 
would  become  a  glorious  fact.  All  the  essential  elements  of 
Paul's  gospel  of  the  Cross  were  thus  present  in  Paul's  mind 
before  the  conversion ;  the  validity  of  them  had  been  posited  by 
him  for  the  purposes  of  argument.  The  only  thing  that  was 
lacking  to  make  Paul  a  disciple  of  Jesus  was  conviction  of  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection.  That  conviction  was  supplied  by 
the  Damascus  experience.  The  unstable  equilibrium  then  was 
over ;  the  elements  of  the  Pauline  gospel,  which  were  all  present 
before,  fell  at  once  into  their  proper  places. 

The  other  way  of  explaining  the  conversion  starts  from 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  and  the  dissatisfaction  which 
Paul  is  thought  to  have  experienced  under  the  Law.  Paul,  it 
is  said,  was  a  Pharisee;  he  made  every  effort  to  keep  the  Law 
of  God.  But  he  was  too  earnest  to  be  satisfied  with  a  merely 
external  obedience;  and  real  obedience  he  had  not  attained. 
He  was  therefore  tormented  by  a  sense  of  sin.  That  sense 
of  sin  no  doubt  led  him  into  a  more  and  more  feverish  effort 
to  keep  the  letter  of  the  Law  and  particularly  to  show  his 
zeal  by  persecuting  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  But  all  his  efforts 
were  vain;  his  obedience  remained  insufficient;  the  curse  of 
the  Law  still  rested  upon  him.  What  if  the  vain  effort  could 
be  abandoned?  What  if  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  right? 
Of  course,  he  believed,  they  were  not  right,  but  what  if  they 
were?  What  if  the  Messiah  had  really  died  for  the  sins  of 
i  believers,  in  accordance  with  Isaiah  liii?  What  if  salvation  were 
,  attainable  not  by  merit  but  by  divine  grace?  These  questions, 
it  is  supposed,  were  in  the  mind  of  Paul.  He  answered  them 
still  in  the  negative,  but  his  misery  kept  them  ever  before  his 
mind.  The  Law  was  thus  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  him  to 
Christ.  He  was  ready  for  the  vision. 

In  both  of  these  lines  of  explanation  importance  is  often 
attributed  to  the  impression  produced  upon  Paul's  mind  by 
•  the  character  of  the  disciples.  Whence  did  they  derive  their 
bravery  and  their  joy  in  the  midst  of  persecution?  Whence 
came  the  fervor  of  their  love,  whence  the  firmness  of  their 
faith?  The  persecutor,  it  is  said,  was  impressed  against  his 
will 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  65 

The  fundamental  objection  to  all  these  theories  of  psycho- 
logical development  is  that  they  describe  only  what  might 
have  been  or  what  ought  to  have  been,  and  not  what  actually 
was.  No  doubt  Paul  ought  to  have  been  coming  nearer  to 
Christianity;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  rather  getting 
further  away,  and  he  records  the  fact  in  no  uncertain  terms 
in  his  Epistles.  There  are  objections,  moreover,  to  the  various 
theories  of  development  in  detail;  and  the  advocates  of  one 
theory  are  often  the  severest  critics  of  another. 

With  regard  to  Holsten's  exposition  of  the  "gnosis  of 
the  Cross,"  for  example,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence 
that  the  pre-Christian  Jews  interpreted  Isaiah  liii  of  the  vi- 
carious sufferings  of  the  Messiah,  or  had  any  notion  of  the 
Messiah's  vicarious  death.1  It  is  not  true,  moreover,  as 
Beyschlag  pointed  out  against  Hols  ten,  that  Paul  was  help- 
less in  the  face  of  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection.2  Accord- 
ing to  Paul's  Pharisaic  training,  the  resurrection  would  come 
only  at  the  end  of  the  age ;  a  resurrection  like  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  therefore,  was  by  no  means  a  matter  of  course,  and 
could  be  established  only  by  positive  evidence  of  the  most  direct 
and  unequivocal  kind. 

With  regard  to  the  sense  of  sin  as  the  goad  which  forced 
Paul  to  accept  the  Saviour,  there  is  no  evidence  that  before 
his  conversion  Paul  was  under  real  conviction  of  sin.  It  is 
very  doubtful  whether  Rom.  vii.  7-25,  with  its  account  of  the 
struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the  higher  nature  of  man,  refers 
to  the  unregenerate  rather  than  to  the  regenerate  life;  and 
even  if  the  former  view  is  correct,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
description  is  taken  from  the  apostle's  own  experience.  At 
any  rate,  the  struggle,  even  if  it  be  a  struggle  in  the  unre- 
generate man,  is  described  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  re- 
generate; it  is  not  implied,  therefore,  that  before  the  entrance 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  a  man  is  fully  conscious  of  his  own  help- 
lessness and  of  the  desperateness  of  the  struggle.  The  passage 
therefore,  does  not  afford  any  certain  information  about  the 
pre-Christian  life  of  Paul.  Undoubtedly  before  the  conversion 
the  conscience  of  Paul  was  aroused;  he  was  conscientious  in 

*See  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  4te  Aufl.,  ii,  1907,  pp. 
648-651  (English  Translation,  A  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  Division 
II,  vol.  ii,  1885,  pp.  184-187). 

3  Beyschlag,  "Die  Visionshypothese  in  ihrer  neuesten  Begriindung,"  in 
Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  xliii,  1870,  pp.  19-21. 


66  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

his  devotion  to  the  Law.  Probably  he  was  conscious  of  his 
failings.  But  that  such  consciousness  of  failure  amounted  to 
anything  like  that  genuine  conviction  of  sin  which  leads  a 
man  to  accept  the  Saviour  remains  very  doubtful.  Recognized 
failure  to  keep  the  Law  perfectly  led  in  the  case  of  Paul  merely 
to  greater  zeal  for  the  Law,  a  zeal  which  was  manifested  espe- 
cially in  the  persecution  of  a  blasphemous  sect  whose  teaching 
was  subversive  of  the  authority  of  Moses. 

Finally,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Paul  was  favorably 
impressed  by  the  bravery  of  those  whom  he  was  persecuting. 
It  may  seem  strange  at  first  sight  that  the  same  man  who 
wrote  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  1  Corinthians  should  have 
haled  helpless  men  and  women  to  prison  without  a  qualm,  or 
listened  without  pity  to  the  dying  words  of  Stephen,  "Lord, 
lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge."  But  it  is  very  dangerous 
to  argue  back  from  the  Christian  life  of  Paul  to  the  life  of 
Paul  the  Pharisee.  Paul  himself  was  conscious  of  a  complete 
moral  transformation  as  having  taken  place  in  him  when  he 
saw  the  Lord  near  Damascus.  What  was  impossible  for  him 
after  that  transformation  may  well  have  been  possible  before. 
Moreover,  if,  despite  such  considerations,  we  could  argue  back 
from  Paul  the  disciple  of  Jesus  to  Paul  the  Pharisee,  there  is 
one  characteristic  of  the  apostle  which  would  never  have  per- 
mitted him  to  persecute  those  by  whom  he  Was  favorably  im- 
pressed— namely,  his  complete  sincerity.  The  picture  of  Saul 
the  doubter,  torn  by  conflicting  emotions,  impressed  by  the 
calmness  and  bravery  and  magnanimity  of  those  whom  he  was 
persecuting,  yet  stifling  such  impressions  by  persecuting  zeal, 
is  very  romantic,  but  very  un-Pauline. 

But  in  attributing  the  conversion  of  Paul  altogether  to 
the  experience  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  are  we  not  heaping 
up  into  one  moment  what  must  of  very  necessity  in  conscious 
life  be  the  work  of  years?  Is  it  conceivable  that  ideas  should 
have  been  implanted  in  the  mind  of  a  person  not  by  processes 
of  acquisition  but  mechanically  as  though  by  a  hypodermic 
syringe?  Would  not  such  an  experience,  even  if  it  were  pos- 
sible, be  altogether  destructive  of  personality? 

The  objection  serves  to  correct  possible  misunderstandings. 
The  view  of  the  conversion  which  has  just  been  set  forth  does 
not  mean  that  when  Paul  drew  near  to  Damascus  on  that 
memorable  day  he  was  ignorant  of  the  facts  about  Jesus.  I| 


THE  EARLY  YEARS  67 

he  had  never  heard  of  Jesus,  or  if  having  heard  of  Him  he 
knew  absolutely  nothing  about  Him,  then  perhaps  the  con- 
version would  have  been  not  only  supernatural  but  inconceiv- 
able. But  it  is  not  the  traditional  view  of  the  conversion 
which  is  guilty  of  such  exaggerations.  They  are  the  product 
rather  of  that  separation  of  Paul  from  the  historical  Jesus 
which  appears  for  example  in  Wrede  and  in  Bousset.  Accord- 
ing to  any  reasonable  view  of  Paul's  pre-Christian  experience, 
Paul  was  well  acquainted,  before  the  conversion,  with  many 
of  the  facts  about  Jesus'  life  and  death;  what  he  received  on 
the  road  to  Damascus  was  a  new  interpretation  of  the  facts 
and  a  new  attitude  toward  them.  He  had  known  the  facts  be- 
fore, but  they  had  filled  him  with  hatred;  now  his  hatred  was 
changed  into  love. 

Even  after  exaggerations  have  been  removed,  however,  the 
change  wrought  by  the  Damascus  experience  remains  revolu- 
tionary enough.  Is  that  change  conceivable?  Could  hatred 
have  been  changed  into  love  merely  by  an  experience  which 
convinced  Paul  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection?  The  answer 
to  this  question  depends  altogether  upon  the  nature  of  the 
Damascus  experience.  If  that  experience  was  merely  an  hal- 
lucination, the  question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative; 
an  hallucination  could  never  have  produced  the  profound 
changes  in  the  personal  life  of  Paul  which  have  just  been 
contemplated ;  and  the  historian  would  be  obliged  to  fall  back, 
despite  the  unequivocal  testimony  of  the  Epistles,  upon  some 
theory  of  psychological  development  of  which  the  hallucination 
would  only  be  the  climax.  But  even  those  who  maintain  the 
super-naturalistic  view  of  the  conversion  have  too  often  failed 
to  do  justice  to  the  content  of  the  experience.  One  fundamental 
feature  of  the  experience  has  too  often  been  forgotten — the 
appearance  on  the  road  to  Damascus  was  the  appearance  of 
a  person.  Sometimes  the  event  has  been  regarded  merely  as  • 
a  supernatural  interposition  of  God  intended  to  produce  be- 
lief in  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  as  merely  a  sign.  Un- 
doubtedly it  was  a  sign.  But  it  was  far  more;  it  was  contact 
between  persons.  But  contact  between  persons,  even  under 
ordinary  conditions,  is  exceedingly  mysterious ;  merely  a  look 
or  the  tone  of  the  voice  sometimes  produces  astonishing  results. 
Who  has  not  experienced  the  transition  from  mere  hearsay 
knowledge  of  a  person  to  actual  contact?  One  meeting  is 


68  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

often  sufficient  to  revolutionize  the  entire  impression;  indif- 
ference or  hostility  gives  place  at  once  to  enthusiastic  devotion. 
Those  who  speak  of  the  transformation  wrought  in  Paul  by 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  as  magical  or  mechanical  or  incon- 
ceivable have  never  reflected  upon  the  mysteries  of  personal 
intercourse. 

Only,  it  must  have  been  a  real  person  whom  Paul  met  on 
the  road  to  Damascus — not  a  vision,  not  a  mere  sign.  If  it 
was  merely  a  vision  or  a  sign,  all  the  objections  remain  in 
force.  But  if  it  was  really  Jesus,  the  sight  of  His  face  and 
the  words  of  love  which  He  uttered  may  have  been  amply  suf- 
ficient, provided  the  heart  of  Paul  was  renewed  by  the  power 
of  God's  Spirit,  to  transform  hatred  into  love.  To  call  such 
an  experience  magic  is  to  blaspheme  all  that  is  highest  in 
human  life.  God  was  using  no  unworthy  instrument  when,  by 
the  personal  presence  of  the  Saviour,  He  transformed  the  life 
of  Paul. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  moral  or  psychological  objection 
in  the  way  of  a  simple  acceptance  of  Paul's  testimony  about 
the  conversion.  And  that  testimony  is  unequivocal.  Paul  was 
not  converted  by  any  teaching  which  he  received  from  men; 
he  was  not  converted  as  Christians  are  usually  converted,  by 
the  preaching  of  the  truth  or  by  that  revelation  of  Christ 
which  is  contained  in  the  lives  of  His  followers.  Jesus  Him- 
self in  the  case  of  Paul  did  in  visible  presence  what  He  ordi- 
narily does  by  the  means  which  He  has  appointed.  Upon  this 
immediateness  of  the  conversion,  Paul  is  willing  to  stake  the 
whole  of  his  life;  upon  it  he  bases  his  apostolic  authority. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM 

AFTER  the  conversion,  according  to  the  Book  of  Acts, 
Paul  received  the  ministrations  of  Ananias,  and  was  baptized.1 
These  details  are  not  excluded  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians.  In  the  Epistle,  Paul  says  that  after  God  had  revealed 
His  son  in  him  he  did  not  confer  with  flesh  and  blood ;  2  but 
the  conference  with  flesh  and  blood  which  he  was  concerned 
to  deny  was  a  conference  with  the  original  apostles  at  Jerusa- 
lem about  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  not  a  conference  with 
humble  disciples  at  Damascus.  An  over-interpretation  of 
Galatians  would  here  lead  almost  to  absurdity.  Is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  after  the  conversion  Paul  refused  to  have  any- 
thing whatever  to  do  with  those  who  were  now  his  brethren? 
In  particular,  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  he  who  afterwards 
placed  baptism  as  a  matter  of  course  at  the  beginning  of  the 
new  life  for  every  Christian  should  himself  not  have  been  bap- 
tized? The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  does  not  mention  his 
baptism,  but  that  omission  merely  illustrates  the  incomplete- 
ness of  the  account.  And  if  the  baptism  of  Paul,  which  cer- 
tainly must  have  taken  place,  is  omitted  from  Galatians,  other 
omissions  must  not  be  regarded  as  any  more  significant. 
The  first  two  chapters  of  Galatians  are  not  intended  to  fur- 
nish complete  biography.  Only  those  details  are  mentioned 
which  were  important  for  Paul's  argument  or  had  been  mis- 
represented by  his  Judaizing  opponents. 

After  God  had  revealed  His  son  in  him,  Paul  says,  he 
went  away  into  Arabia.  Apparently  this  journey  to  Arabia  is 
to  be  put  very  soon  after  the  revelation,  though  the  construc- 
tion of  the  word  "immediately"  in  Gal.  i.  16  is  not  perfectly 
clear.  If  that  word  goes  merely  with  the  negative  part  of 
the  sentence,  then  nothing  is  said  about  the  time  of  the  journey 

JActs  ix.  10-19;  xxii.  12-16. 
2  Gal.  i.  16. 

71 


72  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

to  Arabia;  Paul  would  say  merely  that  in  the  period  just 
after  the  revelation  of  God's  Son  he  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem. There  would  then  be  no  difficulty  in  the  assertion  of  Acts 
which  seems  to  put  a  stay  in  Damascus  with  preaching  ac- 
tivity in  the  synagogues  immediately  after  the  baptism.  This 
interpretation  is  adopted  by  a  number  of  modern  commenta- 
tors, not  only  by  B.  Weiss  and  Zahn,  who  might  be  suspected 
of  a  bias  in  favor  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  but  also  by  Sieffert 
and  Lipsius  and  Bousset.  Perhaps  more  naturally,  however, 
the  word  "immediately"  in  Galatians  is  to  be  taken  gram- 
matically with  the  positive  part  of  the  sentence  or  with  the 
whole  sentence;  the  sentence  would  then  mean,  "Immediately, 
instead  of  conferring  with  flesh  and  blood  or  going  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  those  who  were  apostles  before  me,  I  went  away 
into  Arabia  and  again  I  returned  to  Damascus."  Even  so, 
however,  there  is  no  real  contradiction  with  Acts.  When  Paul 
tells  what  happened  "immediately"  after  the  revelation  he 
is  thinking  in  terms  not  of  days  but  of  journeys.  The  very 
first  journey  after  the  conversion — and  it  took  place  soon — 
was  not  to  Jerusalem  but  to  Arabia.  When  taken  in  the  con- 
text the  sentence  does  not  exclude  a  brief  preaching  activity 
in  Damascus  before  the  journey  to  Arabia.  Grammatically 
the  word  "immediately"  may  go  with  the  positive  part  of  the 
sentence,  but  in  essential  import  it  goes  rather  with  the  negative 
part.  What  Paul  is  really  concerned  about  is  to  deny  that  he 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  soon  after  his  conversion. 

The  Book  of  Acts  does  not  mention  the  journey  to  Arabia 
and  does  not  make  clear  where  it  may  be  inserted.  Sometimes 
it  is  placed  in  the  middle  of  Acts  ix.  19,  before  the  words, 
"And  he  was  with  the  disciples  in  Damascus  some  days."  In 
that  case  the  discussion  about  the  word  "immediately"  in  Gal. 
i.  16  would  be  unnecessary;  that  word  could  be  taken  strictly 
with  the  positive  part  of  the  sentence  without  contradicting 
the  Book  of  Acts;  the  journey  to  Arabia  would  have  preceded 
the  preaching  activity  in  Damascus.  Or  the  journey  may  be 
placed  before  Acts  ix.  22;  it  would  then  be  the  cause  of  the 
greater  vigor  of  Paul's  preaching.  Finally,  it  may  be  placed 
simply  within  the  "many  days"  of  Acts  ix.  23.  The  phrase, 
"many  days,"  in  Acts  apparently  is  used  to  indicate  fairly 
long  periods  of  time.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  author 
of  Acts  is  not  concerned  here  about  chronology;  perhaps  he 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        75 

did  not  trouble  himself  to  investigate  the  exact  period  of 
time  that  elapsed  before  the  journey  to  Jerusalem.  He  was 
content  merely  to  record  the  fact  that  before  Paul  went  to 
Jerusalem  he  engaged  for  a  considerable  time  in  preaching  in 
the  Damascus  synagogues.  Certainly  he  must  here  be  acquitted 
of  any  attempt  at  subserving  the  interests  of  harmony  in  the 
Church  by  a  falsification  of  history.  It  is  generally  recog- 
nized now,  against  the  Tubingen  contentions,  that  if  the 
author  of  Acts  contradicts  Galatians,  his  contradiction  is  naive 
rather  than  deliberate;  the  contradiction  or  apparent  contra- 
diction at  least  shows  the  complete  independence  of  his  ac- 
count. He  is  not  deliberately  shortening  up  the  time  before 
Paul's  first  conference  with  Peter  in  the  interests  of  a  com- 
promise between  a  Pauline  and  a  Petrine  party  in  the  Church; 
if  he  had  had  the  "three  years"  of  Paul  before  him  as  he  wrote 
he  would  have  had  no  objection  to  using  the  detail  in  his  his- 
tory. But  investigation  of  the  chronology  did  not  here  seem 
to  be  important.  The  detail  of  the  three  years  was  vastly 
important  for  Paul's  argument  in  Galatians,  where  he  is 
showing  that  for  a  considerable  period  after  the  conversion 
he  did  not  even  meet  those  from  whom  he  was  said  to  have 
received  his  gospel,  but  it  was  not  at  all  important  in  a  gen- 
eral history  of  the  progress  of  the  Church. 

The  extent  of  the  journey  to  Arabia,  both  geographically 
and  temporally,  is  entirely  unknown.  "Arabia"  included  not 
only  very  remote  regions  but  also  a  territory  almost  at  the 
gates  of  Damascus ;  and  all  that  may  be  determined  about  the 
length  of  the  Arabian  residence  is  that  it  was  less  than  three 
years.  Possibly  Paul  remained  only  a  few  weeks  in  Arabia. 
In  that  case  the  omission  of  the  journey  from  the  general 
narrative  in  Acts  is  very  natural.  The  importance  of  Arabia 
in  Paul's  argument  is  due  simply  to  the  fact  that  Arabia  was 
not  Jerusalem;  Paul  mentions  the  journey  to  Arabia  simply 
in  contrast  with  a  journey  to  Jerusalem  which  he  is  exclud- 
ing in  the  interests  of  his  argument.  The  only  thing  that 
might  seem  to  require  a  considerable  stay  in  Arabia  is  the 
narrative  of  Paul's  first  Jerusalem  visit  in  Acts  ix.  26-30 ;  the 
distrust  of  Paul  displayed  by  the  Jerusalem  Christians  is 
more  easily  explicable  if  after  his  conversion  he  had  been 
living  for  the  most  part  in  a  region  more  remote  than  Damascus 
from  Jerusalem.  A  similar  consideration  might  possibly  sug- 


74  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

gest  that  in  Arabia  Paul  was  engaged  in  meditation  rather 
than  in  missionary  activity;  he  had  not  yet  become  so  well 
known  as  a  preacher  that  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  could 
begin  to  glorify  God  in  him,  as  they  did  a  little  later.  Pos- 
sibly also  there  is  an  implied  contrast  in  Gal.  i.  16,  17  be- 
tween conference  with  the  original  apostles  and  direct  com- 
munion with  Christ ;  possibly  Paul  means  to  say,  "Instead  of 
conferring  with  flesh  and  blood  in  Jerusalem,  I  communed  with 
the  Lord  in  Arabia."  Despite  such  considerations,  the  matter 
is  by  no  means  perfectly  clear;  it  is  perfectly  possible  that 
Paul  engaged  in  missionary  work  in  Arabia.  But  at  any  rate, 
even  if  that  view  be  correct,  he  also  engaged  in  meditation. 
Paul  was  never  a  mere  "practical  Christian"  in  the  modern 
sense;  labor  in  his  case  was  always  based  upon  thought,  and 
life  upon  doctrine. 

The  escape  of  Paul  from  Damascus  just  before  his  first 
visit  to  Jerusalem  is  narrated  in  Acts  ix.  23-25  and  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  32,  33.  The  mention  of  the  ethnarch  of  Aretas  the  Nabatean 
king  as  having  authority  at  or  near  Damascus  causes  some 
difficulty,  and  might  not  have  passed  unchallenged  if  it  had 
been  attested  by  Acts.     But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  just  this 
detail  which  appears,  not  in  Acts,  but  in  an  epistle  of  Paul. 
The  first  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  after  the  conversion 
is  described  in  Acts  ix.  26-30;  xxii.  17-21 ;  Gal.  i.  18,  19.     In 
itself,  the  account  in  Acts  bears  every  mark  of  trustworthiness. 
The  only  detail  which  might  seem  surprising  is  that  the  Jerusa- 
lem  Christians   would   not   at   first   believe   that   Paul   was   a 
disciple;  must  not  a  notable  event  like  the  conversion  of  so 
prominent  a  persecutor  have  become  known  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
course  of  three  years?     But  if  Paul  had  spent  a  large  part 
of  the  three  years  in  Arabia,  whence  news  of  him  could  not 
be  easily  obtained,  the  report  of  his   conversion  might  have 
come  to  seem  like  a  remote  rumor;  the  very  fact  of  his  with- 
drawal might,  as  has  been  suggested,  have  cast  suspicion  upon 
the  reality  of  his  conversion.     Emotion,  moreover,  often  lags 
behind  cold  reasoning;  the  heart  is  more  difficult  to  convince 
than  the  mind.     The  Jerusalem   Christians  had  known   Paul 
only  as  a  cruel  and  relentless  persecutor ;  it  was  not  so  easy  for 
them  to  receive  him  at  once  as  a  brother.     This  one  detail  is 
therefore   not   at   all    sufficient   to   reverse   the   favorable   im- 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        75 

pression  which  is  made  by  the  Lucan  account  of  the  visit  as 
a  whole. 

The  chief  objection  to  the  account  is  usually  found  in  a 
comparison  with  what  Paul  himself  says  in  Galatians.  In 
itself,  the  account  is  natural;  but  does  it  agree  with  Paul's 
own  testimony?  One  apparent  divergence  may  indeed  soon  be 
dismissed.  In  Acts  ix.  27  it  is  said  that  Paul  was  introduced 
to  "the  apostles,"  whereas  in  Gal.  i.  19  it  is  said  that  Paul  saw 
only  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (who  was  not  among  the 
Twelve),  and  Peter.  But  possibly  the  author  of  Acts  is  using 
the  term  "apostle"  in  a  sense  broad  enough  to  include  James, 
so  that  Paul  actually  saw  two  "apostles" — Peter  and  James — 
or  else  the  plural  is  used  merely  in  a  generic  sense  to  indi- 
cate that  Paul  was  introduced  to  whatever  representative  or 
representatives  of  the  apostolic  body  may  have  happened  to  be 
present. 

Much  more  weight  is  commonly  attributed  to  an  objection 
drawn  from  the  general  representation  of  the  visit.  Accord- 
ing to  Acts,  Paul  was  associated  publicly  with  the  Jerusalem 
disciples  and  engaged  in  an  active  mission  among  the  Greek- 
speaking  Jews ;  according  to  Galatians,  it  is  argued,  he  was 
in  strict  hiding,  since  he  did  not  become  acquainted  personally 
with  the  churches  of  Judaea  (Gal.  i.  22).  But  the  objection, 
as  has  already  been  observed,  depends  upon  an  over-interpre- 
tation of  Gal.  i.  22.  Whether  or  no  "Judaea"  means  the  coun- 
try in  sharp  distinction  from  the  capital,  in  either  case  all 
that  is  necessarily  meant  is  that  Paul  did  not  become  acquainted 
generally  with  the  Judaean  churches.  The  capital  may  well 
have  formed  an  exception.  If  Paul  had  meant  in  the  preceding 
verses  that  he  had  been  in  hiding  in  Jerusalem  he  would  have 
expressed  himself  very  differently.  Certainly  the  modern  rep- 
resentation of  the  visit  is  in  itself  improbable.  The  picture 
of  Paul  entering  Jerusalem  under  cover  of  darkness  or  under 
a  disguise  and  being  kept  as  a  mysterious  stranger  somewhere 
in  a  secret  chamber  of  Peter's  house  is  certainly  much  less 
natural  than  the  account  which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives  of  the 
earnest  attempt  of  Paul  to  repair  the  damage  which  he  had 
done  to  the  Jerusalem  Church.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether 
concealment  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem  would  have  been  possible 
even  if  Paul  had  consented  to  it ;  he  was  too  well-known  in 


76  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  city.  Of  course  this  last  argument  would  be  answered  if, 
as  Heitmiiller  and  Loisy  suppose,  Paul  had  never  been  in  Jeru- 
salem at  all,  even  as  a  persecutor.  But  that  hypothesis  is 
faced  by  absolutely  decisive  objections,  as  has  already  been 
observed. 

The  whole  modern  representation  of  the  first  visit,  there- 
fore, is  based  solely  upon  a  very  doubtful  interpretation  of 
one  verse,  and  is  in  itself  highly  unnatural.  Surely  it  is  much 
more  probable  that  the  real  reason  why  Paul  saw  only  Peter 
and  James  among  the  leaders  was  that  the  others  were  out 
of  the  city,  engaged  in  missionary  work  in  Judaea.  Their 
presence  in  the  churches  of  Judaea  would  explain  the  mention 
of  those  churches  in  Gal.  i.  22.  Paul  is  indicating  the  meager- 
ness  of  his  direct  contact  with  the  original  apostles.  The 
churches  of  Judaea  would  become  important  in  his  argument 
if  they  were  the  scene  of  the  apostles'  labors.  Against  a  very 
doubtful  interpretation  of  the  account  in  Galatians,  which 
brings  it  into  contradiction  with  Acts,  may  therefore  be  placed 
an  entirely  consistent  interpretation  which,  when  the  account 
is  combined  with  Acts,  produces  a  thoroughly  natural  repre- 
sentation of  the  course  of  events. 

Paul  says  nothing  about  what  happened  during  his  fifteen- 
day  intercourse  with  Peter.  But  it  is  highly  improbable,  as 
even  Holsten  pointed  out,  that  he  spent  the  time  gazing  silently 
at  Peter  as  though  Peter  were  one  of  the  sights  of  the  city.1 
Undoubtedly  there  was  conversation  between  the  two  men,  and 
in  the  conversation  the  subject  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
could  hardly  be  avoided.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  Paul 
denies,  indeed,  that  he  received  his  gospel  from  men.  But  the 
bare  facts  about  Jesus  did  not  constitute  a  gospel.  The  facts 
were  known  to  some  extent  to  friend  and  foe  alike ;  Paul  knew 
something  about  them  even  before  his  conversion  and  then  in- 
creased his  knowledge  through  intercourse  with  the  disciples 
at  Damascus.  The  fifteen  days  spent  in  company  with  Peter 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  bring  a  further  enrichment  of  his 
knowledge. 

In  1  Cor.  xv.  3-7,  Paul  gives  a  summary  of  what  he  had 

i  a  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  p.  118,  Anm.:  "Aber  naturlich  kann  in  dem  ioropr/a 
vKirfa  nich^  liegen,  Paulus  sei  nach  Jerusalem  gegangen,  urn  den  Petrus 
fiinfzehn  tage  lang  stumm  anzuschauen.  Die  beiden  manner  werden  mit- 
einander  liber  das  evangelium  Christi  geredet  haben." 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        77 

"received" — the  death,  burial,  resurrection,  and  appearances 
of  Jesus.  The  vast  majority  of  modern  investigators,  of  all 
shades  of  opinion,  find  in  these  verses  a  summary  of  the  Jerusa- 
lem tradition  which  Paul  received  from  Peter  during  the  fifteen 
days.  Undoubtedly  Paul  knew  some  if  not  all  of  these  facts  be- 
fore he  went  to  Jerusalem ;  the  facts  were  probably  common 
property  of  the  disciples  in  Damascus  as  well  as  in  Jerusalem. 
But  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  not  have  tested  and  supple- 
mented the  tradition  by  what  Peter,  whose  name  stands  first 
(1  Cor.  xv.  5)  in  the  list  of  the  appearances,  said  in  Jerusalem. 
Recently,  indeed,  an  attempt  has  been  made  by  Heitmiiller  to 
represent  the  tradition  as  being  derived  merely  from  the  Chris- 
tian communities  in  Damascus  or  Antioch,  and  at  best  only 
indirectly  from  Jerusalem;  these  communities  are  thus  inter- 
posed as  an  additional  link  between  Paul  and  the  Jerusalem 
Church.1  But  the  very  purpose  of  the  passage  in  1  Cor- 
inthians is  to  emphasize  the  unity  of  teaching,  not  between  Paul 
and  certain  obscure  Christians  in  Hellenistic  communities,  but 
between  Paul  and  the  "apostles."  "Whether  therefore,"  Paul 
says,  "it  be  I  or  they,  so  we  preach  and  so  ye  believed"  (1 
Cor.  xv.  11).  The  attempt  at  separating  the  factual  basis  of 
the  Pauline  gospel  from  the  primitive  tradition  shatters  upon 
the  rock  of  1  Corinthians  and  Galatians.  In  Galatians,  Paul 
says  he  was  in  direct  intercourse  with  Peter,  and  in  1  Cor- 
inthians he  emphasizes  the  unity  of  his  teaching  with  that  of 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles. 

After  leaving  Jerusalem  Paul  went  into  the  regions  of 
Syria  and  of  Cilicia ;  the  Book  of  Acts,  more  specifically,  men- 
tions Tarsus  (Cilicia)  and  Antioch  (Syria).  The  period 
which  Paul  spent  in  Tarsus  or  in  its  vicinity  is  for  us  alto- 
gether obscure.  In  all  probability  he  engaged  in  missionary 
work  and  included  Gentiles  in  his  mission.  Certainly  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  Cilician  period  Barnabas  thought  him  suit- 
able for  the  specifically  Gentile  work  at  Antioch,  and  it  is 
probable  that  he  had  already  demonstrated  his  suitability. 
His  apostolic  consciousness,  also,  as  attested  both  by  the  Book 
of  Acts  and  by  Galatians,  suggests  that  the  beginning  of  his 
life-work  as  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  was  not  too  long  deferred. 

1  Heitmuller,  "Zum  Problem  Paulus  und  Jesus,"  in  Zeitschrift   fur  die 
neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  xiii,  1912,  pp.  320-337,  especially  p.  331. 


78  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

At  Antioch,  the  disciples  were  first  called  "Christians" 
(Acts  xi.  26).  The  objections,  especially  linguistic,  formerly 
urged  against  this  assertion  of  Acts  have  now  for  the  most 
part  been  silenced.  The  assertion  is  important  as  showing 
that  the  Church  was  becoming  so  clearly  separate  from  the 
synagogue  that  a  separate  name  had  to  be  coined  by  the  Gentile 
population.  Tremendous  importance  is  attributed  to  the 
Christian  community  at  Antioch  by  Bousset  and  Heitmiiller, 
who  believe  that  the  religion  of  that  community  had  diverged  in 
fundamental  respects  from  the  religion  of  the  primitive  Jerusa- 
lem Church,  and  that  this  extra-Palestinian  Christianity,  and 
not  the  Christianity  of  Jerusalem,  is  the  basis  of  the  religion 
of  Paul.  According  to  this  hypothesis,  the  independence  of 
Paul  which  is  attested  in  Galatians  is  apparently  to  be  re- 
garded as  independence  merely  over  against  the  intimate  friends 
of  Jesus ;  apparently  Paul  had  no  objection  against  taking 
over  the  teaching  of  the  Greek-speaking  Christians  of  Antioch. 
This  representation  is  out  of  accord  with  what  has  just  been 
established  about  the  relations  between  Paul  and  the  Jerusalem 
Church.  It  must  be  examined  more  in  detail,  however,  in  a 
subsequent  chapter. 

After  at  least  a  year — probably  more — Barnabas  and 
Saul,  according  to  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25,  were  sent  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  bear  the  gifts  of  the  Antioch  Church,  which  had  been 
collected  in  view  of  the  famine  prophesied  by  Agabus.  This 
"famine  visit"  is  the  second  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  which 
is  mentioned  in  Acts.  The  second  visit  which  is  mentioned 
in  Galatians  is  the  one  described  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10,  at  which  Paul 
came  into  conference  with  the  pillars  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church.  May  the  two  be  identified?  Is  Gal.  ii.  1-10  an  ac- 
count of  the  visit  which  is  mentioned  in  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25  ?  l 

Chronology  opposes  no  absolutely  insuperable  objection 
to  the  identification.  The  apparent  objection  is  as  follows. 
The  famine  visit  of  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25  took  place  at  about  the 
same  time  as  the  events  narrated  in  Acts  xii,  since  the  narrative 
of  those  events  is  interposed  between  the  mention  of  the  com- 
ing of  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xi.  30)  and  that 
of  their  return  to  Antioch  (Acts  xii.  25).  But  the  events  of 

1  For  what  follows,  compare  "Recent  Criticism  of  the   Book  of  Acts," 
in  Princeton  Theological  Review,  xvii,  1919,  pp.  597-608. 


THE   TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        79 

Acts  xii  include  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I,  which  certainly 
occurred  in  44  A.D.  The  famine  visit,  therefore,  apparently 
occurred  at  about  44  A.D.  But  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  took 
place  fourteen  years  (Gal.  ii.  1)  after  the  first  visit,  which  in 
turn  took  place  three  years  (Gal.  i.  18)  after  the  conversion. 
Therefore  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  took  place  seventeen  (3+14) 
years  after  the  conversion.  But  if  that  visit  be  identified  with 
the  famine  visit  and  the  famine  visit  took  place  in  44  A.D.,  the 
conversion  must  have  taken  place  seventeen  years  before  44 
A.D.  or  in  27  A.D.,  which  of  course  is  impossible  since  the 
crucifixion  of  Jesus  did  not  occur  till  several  years  after  that 
time.  At  first  sight,  therefore,  it  looks  as  though  the  identi- 
fication of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  the  famine  visit  were  impossible. 
Closer  examination,  however,  shows  that  the  chronological 
data  all  allow  a  certain  amount  of  leeway.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  famine  visit  took  place  at 
exactly  the  time  of  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I  in  44  A.D. 
The  author  of  Acts  has  been  carrying  on  two  threads  of  narra- 
tive, one  dealing  with  Antioch  and  the  other  dealing  with 
Jerusalem.  In  Acts  xi.  19-30  he  has  carried  the  Antioch  nar- 
rative on  to  a  point  beyond  that  reached  in  the  Jerusalem 
narrative.  Now,  when  the  two  narratives  are  brought  together 
by  the  visit  of  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  the  author 
pauses  in  order  to  bring  the  Jerusalem  narrative  up  to  date; 
he  tells  what  has  been  happening  at  Jerusalem  during  the  pe- 
riod in  which  the  reader's  attention  has  been  diverted  to  An- 
tioch. The  events  of  Acts  xii  may  therefore  have  taken  place 
some  time  before  the  famine  visit  of  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25 ;  the 
famine  visit  may  have  taken  place  some  time  after  44  A.D. 
Information  in  Josephus  with  regard  to  the  famine,1  combined 
with  the  order  of  the  narrative  in  Acts,  permits  the  placing  of 
the  famine  visit  as  late  as  46  A.D.  In  the  second  place,  it 
is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  took 
place  seventeen  years  after  the  conversion.  The  ancients 
sometimes  used  an  inclusive  method  of  reckoning  time,  in  ac- 
cordance with  which  "three  years"  might  mean  only  one  full 
year  with  parts  of  two  other  years ;  January,  1923,  would  thus 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  XX.  v.  2.  See  Schiirer,  Oeschichte  des  jiidischen 
Volkes,  3te  u.  4te  Aufl.,  i,  1901,  p.  56T  (English  Translation,  A  History  of 
the  Jewish  People,  Division  I,  vol.  ii,  1890,  pp.  169f.). 


80  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

be  "three  years"  after  December,  1921.  According  to  this 
method  of  reckoning,  the  "fourteen  years"  of  Gal.  ii.  1  would 
become  only  thirteen;  and  the  "three  years"  of  Gal.  i.  18  would 
become  only  two  years ;  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  would  thus  be 
only  fifteen  (13  +  2)  instead  of  seventeen  (14  +  3)  years 
after  the  conversion.  If,  then,  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  be 
identified  with  the  famine  visit,  and  the  famine  visit  took  place 
in  46  A.D.,  the  conversion  took  place  in  31  A.D.  (46  —  15), 
which  is  a  possible  date.  Moreover,  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
"fourteen  years"  of  Gal.  ii.  1  is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  first 
visit;  it  may  be  reckoned  from  the  conversion,  so  that  the 
"three  years"  of  Gal.  i.  18  is  to  be  included  in  it  and  not  added 
to  it.  In  that  case,  the  conversion  took  place  only  fourteen 
(or,  by  the  inclusive  method  of  reckoning,  thirteen)  years  be- 
fore the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10;  or,  if  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10 
be  identified  with  the  famine  visit,  fourteen  (or  thirteen)  years 
before  46  A.D.,  that  is,  in  32  A.D.  (or  33  A.D.),  which  is  a 
perfectly  possible  date. 

But  of  course  chronology  does  not  decide  in  favor  of  the 
identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25 ;  at  best 
it  only  permits  that  identification.  Chronologically  it  is  even 
slightly  more  convenient  to  identify  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  a  visit 
subsequent  to  the  famine  visit.  The  only  subsequent  visit 
which  comes  seriously  in  question  is  the  visit  at  the  time  of  the 
"Apostolic  Council"  of  Acts  xv.  1-29.  The  advantages  of 
identifying  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25,  therefore, 
must  be  compared  with  those  of  identifying  it  with  Acts  xv. 
1-29. 

If  the  former  identification  be  adopted,  then  Paul  in  Gala- 
tians  has  not  mentioned  the  Apostolic  Council  of  Acts  xv.  1-29. 
Since  the  Apostolic  Council  dealt  with  the  same  question  as 
that  which  was  under  discussion  in  Galatians,  and  since  it 
constituted  an  important  step  in  Paul's  relations  with  the 
original  apostles,  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  see  how  Paul  could 
have  omitted  it  from  the  Epistle.  This  objection  has  often 
weighed  against  the  identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  the 
famine  visit.  But  in  recent  years  the  objection  has  been  re- 
moved by  the  hypothesis  which  places  the  writing  of  Galatians 
actually  before  the  Apostolic  Council;  obviously  Paul  could 
not  be  expected  to  mention  the  Council  if  the  Council  had  not 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        81 

yet  taken  place.  This  early  dating  of  Galatians  has  been 
advocated  by  a  German  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Weber,1 
and  recently  it  has  won  the  support  of  men  of  widely  divergent 
points  of  view,  such  as  Emmet,2  Kirsopp  Lake,3  Ramsay,4 
and  Plooij.5  Of  course  this  hypothesis  depends  absolutely 
upon  the  correctness  of  the  "South  Galatian"  theory  of  the 
address  of  the  Epistle,  which  finds  "the  Churches  of  Galatia" 
of  Gal.  i.  2  in  Pisidian  Antioch,  Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe; 
for  the  churches  in  "North  Galatia,"  if  there  were  any  such, 
were  not  founded  till  after  the  Apostolic  Council  (Acts  xvi. 
6).« 

One  objection  to  the  early  dating  of  Galatians  is  derived 
from  the  close  relation  between  that  epistle  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  If  Galatians  was  written  before  the  Apostolic 
Council  it  is  the  earliest  of  the  extant  epistles  of  Paul  and  is 
separated  by  a  period  of  some  six  or  eight  years  from  the 
epistles  of  the  third  missionary  journey  with  which  it  has 
ordinarily  been  grouped.  Thus  the  order  of  the  Epistles  would 
be  Galatians,  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  1  and  2  Corinthians, 
Romans.  This  order  seems  to  tear  asunder  the  epistles  which 
naturally  belong  together.  The  objection  was  partially  over- 
come by  a  bold  hypothesis  of  Lake,  who  suggested  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  first  composed  at  an  early  time 
as  an  encyclical  letter,  and  that  later,  being  modified  by  the 
addition  of  a  Roman  address  and  other  suitable  details,  it 
was  sent  to  the  Church  at  Rome.7  On  this  hypothesis  Gala- 
tians and  the  substance  of  Romans  would  be  kept  together  be- 

*Die  Abfassung  des  Oalaterbriefs  vor  dem  Apostelkonzil,  1900. 

2  "Galatians    the    Earliest    of   the    Pauline    Epistles,"    in   Expositor,    7th 
Series,  vol.  ix,  1910,  pp.  242-254  (reprinted  in  The  Eschatological  Question 
in  the  Gospels,  1911,  pp.  191-209);  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  1912, 
pp.  xiv-xxii. 

3  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  pp.  265-304.     In  a  later  book, 
Lake  has  modified  his  views  about  the  relation  between  Galatians  and  Acts. 
The  historicity  of  Acts  xv.  1-29  is  now  abandoned.     See  Landmarks  in  the 
History  of  Early  Christianity,  1920,  pp.  63-66. 

*  Ramsay,  "Suggestions  on  the  History  and  Letters  of  St.  Paul.  I.  The 
Date  of  the  Galatian  Letter,"  in  Expositor,  VIII,  v,  1913,  pp.  127-145. 

6  Plooij,  De  chronologie  van  het  leven  van  Paulas,  1918,  pp.  111-140. 

8  Maurice  Jones  ("The  Date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,"  in  Ex- 
positor, VIII,  vi,  1913,  pp.  193-208)  has  adduced  from  the  Book  of  Acts 
various  arguments  against  the  early  date  of  Galatians,  which,  though  worthy 
of  attention,  are  not  quite  decisive. 

7  Lake,  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  pp.  361-370. 


82  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

cause  both  would  be  placed  early.  The  hypothesis  can  appeal 
to  the  interesting  textual  phenomenon  in  Rom.  i.  7,  where  the 
words  "in  Rome"  are  omitted  by  a  few  witnesses  to  the  text. 
But  the  evidence  is  insufficient.  And  even  if  Lake's  hypothesis 
were  correct,  it  would  not  altogether  overcome  the  difficulty; 
for  both  Galatians  and  Romans  would  be  removed  from  what 
has  usually  been  regarded  as  their  natural  position  among  the 
epistles  of  the  third  missionary  journey.  In  reply,  it  could 
be  said  that  reconstructions  of  an  author's  development,  un- 
less supported  by  plain  documentary  evidence,  are  seldom 
absolutely  certain;  the  simplicity  of  1  and  2  Thessalonians, 
as  over  against  the  great  soteriological  epistles,  Galatians, 
1  and  2  Corinthians,  Romans,  is  no  doubt  due  to  the  immaturity 
of  the  Thessalonian  Church  rather  than  to  any  immaturity  in 
Paul's  thinking.  There  is  therefore  no  absolutely  decisive 
objection  against  putting  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  with 
its  developed  soteriology,  before  the  Thessalonian  Epistles. 

On  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  that  the  identification  of 
Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25  is  perhaps  most  plausible 
when  it  is  connected  with  the  early  dating  of  Galatians,  be- 
fore the  Apostolic  Council.  But  that  identification,  whether 
with  or  without  the  early  dating  of  the  Epistle,  must  now  be 
considered  on  its  merits.  Is  Gal.  ii.  1-10  to  be  identified  with 
the  famine  visit  of  Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25,  or  with  the  Apostolic 
Council  of  Acts  xv? 

The  former  identification  possesses  one  obvious  advan- 
tage— by  it  the  second  visit  in  Galatians  is  the  same  as  the 
second  visit  in  Acts;  whereas  if  Gal.  ii.  1-10  is  identified  with 
Acts  xv.  1-29  Paul  has  passed  over  the  famine  visit  without 
mention.  The  identification  with  the  famine  visit  may  there- 
fore conveniently  be  considered  first. 

According  to  this  identification,  Paul  had  two  confer- 
ences with  the  Jerusalem  leaders,  one  at  the  time  of  the  famine 
visit  and  one  some  years  afterwards  at  the  time  of  the 
Apostolic  Council.  Could  the  second  conference  conceivably 
have  followed  thus  upon  the  former?  If  the  conference  between 
Paul  and  the  Jerusalem  leaders  described  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10  took 
place  at  the  time  of  the  famine  visit,  then  would  not  the 
•Apostolic  Council  seem  to  be  a  mere  meaningless  repetition 
of  the  former  conference?  If  the  matter  of  Gentile  freedom 
had  already  been  settled  (Gal.  ii.  1-10)  at  the  famine  visit, 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        83 

how  could  it  come  up  again  cte  novo  at  the  Apostolic  Coun- 
cil? 

This  objection  is  by  no  means  insuperable.  The  meeting 
described  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10  may  have  been  merely  a  private  meet- 
ing between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles.  Although  the  pres- 
ence of  Titus,  the  uncircumcised  Gentile,  was  no  doubt  a  mat- 
ter of  public  knowledge,  it  need  not  necessarily  have  given  rise, 
to  any  public  discussion,  sincse  it  was  not  unprecedented, 
Cornelius  also  having  been  received  into  the  Church  without 
circumcision.  But  if  the  famine  visit  brought  merely  a 
private  conference  between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles, 
Gentile  freedom  was  still  open  to  attack,  especially  if,  after 
the  famine  visit,  there  was  (as  is  in  any  case  probable)  an 
influx  of  strict  legalists  into  the  Christian  community.  There 
was  no  public  pronouncement  of  the  original  apostles  to 
which  the  advocates  of  freedom  could  appeal.  There  was 
therefore  still  urgent  need  of  a  public  council  such  as  the 
one  described  in  Acts  xv.  1-29,  especially  since  that  council 
dealt  not  only  with  the  general  question  of  Gentile  free- 
dom but  also  with  the  problem  of  mixed  communities  where 
Jews  and  Gentiles  were  living  together.  The  Apostolic  Council, 
therefore,  may  well  have  taken  place  in  the  way  described  in 
Acts  xv.  1-29  even  if  the  conference  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  had  been 
held  some  years  before. 

No  absolutely  decisive  objection,  therefore,  has  yet  been 
found  against  the  identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xi.  30 ; 
xii.  25.  But  the  prima  facie  evidence  has  usually  been  regarded 
as  favoring  the  alternative  identification,  since  Gal.  ii.  1-10 
bears  much  more  resemblance  to  Acts  xv.  1-29  than  it  does  to 
Acts  xi,  30 ;  xii.  25.  Resemblance  to  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25  is  not, 
indeed,  altogether  lacking.  In  both  Galatians  ii.  1-10  and  Acts 
xi.  30 ;  xii.  25,  Barnabas  is  represented  as  going  up  with  Paul 
to  Jerusalem;  in  both  passages  there  is  reference  to  gifts  for 
the  Jerusalem  Church;  and  the  revelation  referred  to  in  Gal. 
ii.  2  as  the  occasion  of  the  journey  may  be  discovered  in  the 
revelation  of  the  famine  made  to  Agabus  (Acts  xi.  28).  But 
the  relief  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  which  is  put  as  the  sole 
purpose  of  the  journey  in  Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25,  is  quite  subordi- 
nate in  Gal.  ii.  1-10;  Barnabas  is  with  Paul  in  Acts  xv.  1-29 
just  as  much  as  he  is  in  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25 ;  and  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  in  Gal.  ii.  2  it  is  not  more  natural  to  think  of  a 


84  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

revelation  coming  to  Paul  rather  than  one  coming  through  the 
mouth  of  Agabus.  The  strongest  argument,  however,  for 
identifying  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xv.  1-29  is  that  the  main  pur- 
pose of  Paul's  visit  seems  to  be  the  same  according  to  both 
passages;  according  to  both  the  matter  of  circumcision  of 
Gentiles  was  under  discussion,  and  according  to  both  the  re- 
sult was  a  triumph  for  the  cause  of  freedom.  This  identifica- 
tion must  now  be  considered.  Various  objections  have  been 
raised  against  it.  These  objections  lead,  according  to  the 
point  of  view  of  the  objector,  either  to  an  acceptance  of  the 
alternative  identification  (with  Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25)  or  else  to  a 
rejection  of  the  historicity  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 

The  first  objection  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  if  Gal. 
ii.  1-10  is  to  be  identified  with  Acts  xv.  1-29,  Paul  has  passed 
over  the  famine  visit  without  mention.  Could  he  have  done  so 
honestly,  if  that  visit  had  really  occurred?  In  the  first  two 
chapters  of  Galatians  Paul  is  establishing  the  independence 
of  his  apostolic  authority ;  he  had  not,  he  says,  as  the  Judaizers 
maintained,  received  his  authority  through  mediation  of  the 
original  apostles.  At  first,  he  says,  he  came  into  no  effec- 
tive contact  with  the  apostles;  it  was  three  years  after  his 
conversion  before  he  saw  any  of  them;  then  he  saw  only  Peter 
(and  James)  and  that  only  for  fifteen  days.  Then  he  went 
away  into  the  regions  of  Syria  and  of  Cilicia  without  ever 
becoming  known  by  face  to  the  Churches  of  Judaea ;  then  after 
fourteen  years  again  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  1). 
Is  it  not  the  very  point  of  the  passage  that  after  his  departure 
to  Syria  and  Cilicia  it  was  fourteen  long  years  before  he  again 
went  up  to  Jerusalem?  Would  not  his  entire  argument  be 
invalidated  if  there  were  an  unmentioned  visit  to  Jerusalem 
between  the  first  visit  (Gal.  i.  18,  19)  and  the  visit  of  Gal. 
ii.  1-10?  If  such  a  visit  had  taken  place,  would  he  not  have 
had  to  mention  it  in  order  to  place  it  in  the  proper  light  as  he 
had  done  in  the  case  of  the  first  visit?  By  omitting  to  men- 
tion the  visit  in  a  context  where  he  is  carefully  tracing  the 
history  of  his  relations  with  the  Jerusalem  leaders,  would  he 
not  be  exposing  himself  to  the  charge  of  dishonest  suppression 
of  facts?  Such  considerations  have  led  a  great  number  of 
investigators  to  reject  the  historicity  of  the  famine  visit;  there 
never  could  have  been,  they  insist,  a  visit  between  the  first 
visit  and  the  visit  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10;  for  if  there  had  been,  Paul 
would  have  been  obliged  to  mention  it,  not  only  by  his  own 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        85 

honesty,  but  also  because  of  the  impossibility  of  deception. 
This  is  one  of  the  points  where  the  narrative  in  Acts  has  been 
most  insistently  criticized.  Here  and  there,  indeed,  there  have 
been  discordant  notes  in  the  chorus  of  criticism ;  the  insufficiency 
of  the  objection  has  been  admitted  now  and  then  even  by  those 
who  are  far  removed  from  any  concern  for  the  defense  of  the 
Book  of  Acts.  Baur  himself,  despite  all  his  Tubingen  severity 
of  criticism,  was  clear-sighted  enough  not  to  lay  stress  upon 
this  particular  objection;1  and  in  recent  years  J.  Weiss  has 
been  equally  discerning.2  In  Galatians  Paul  is  not  giving  a 
complete  enumeration  of  his  visits  to  Jerusalem,  but  merely 
singling  out  those  details  which  had  formed  the  basis  of  the 
Judaizers'  attack,  or  afforded  peculiar  support  to  his  own  con- 
tentions. Apparently  the  Judaizers  had  misrepresented  the 
first  visit ;  that  is  the  time,  they  had  said,  when  Paul  came  un- 
der the  authority  of  the  original  apostles.  In  answer  to  this 
attack  Paul  is  obliged  to  deal  carefully  with  that  first  visit; 
it  came  three  years  after  the  conversion,  he  says,  and  it  lasted 
only  fifteen  days — surely  not  long  enough  to  make  Paul  a 
disciple  of  Peter.  Then  Paul  went  away  into  the  regions  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia.  Probably,  for  the  first  readers,  who  were 
familiar  with  the  outlines  of  Paul's  life,  this  departure  for 
Syria  and  Cilicia  clearly  meant  the  entrance  by  Paul  into 
his  distinctive  Gentile  work.  He  was  well  launched  upon  his 
Gentile  work,  fully  engaged  in  the  proclamation  of  his  gospel, 
before  he  had  ever  had  such  contact  with  the  original  apostles 
as  could  possibly  have  given  him  that  gospel.  At  this  point, 
as  J.  Weiss  3  well  observes,  there  is  a  transition  in  the  argu- 
ment. The  argument  based  on  lack  of  contact  with  the  original 
apostles  has  been  finished,  and  now  gives  place  to  an  entirely 
different  argument.  In  the  first  chapter  of  Galatians  Paul 
has  been  showing  that  at  first  he  had  no  such  contact  with 
the  original  apostles  as  could  have  made  him  a  disciple  of 
theirs ;  now,  in  the  second  chapter  he  proceeds  to  show  that 
when  he  did  come  into  conference  with  them,  they  themselves 
recognized  that  he  was  no  disciple  of  theirs  but  an  independent 

1Baur,  Paulus,  2te  Aufl.,  1866,  pp.  130-132  (English  Translation,  Paul 
i,  1873,  pp.  118-120).  Baur  does  maintain  that  Gal.  ii.  1  renders  improbable 
a  second  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  before  the  conference  with  the  apostles 
which  is  narrated  in  Gal.  ii.  1,  but  points  out  that  in  itself  the  verse  is 
capable  of  a  different  interpretation. 

aj.  Weiss,  Urchristentum,  1914,  p.  147,  Anm.  2. 

*  Loc.  cit. 


86  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

apostle.  Apparently  this  conference,  like  the  first  visit,  had 
been  misrepresented  by  the  Judaizers,  and  hence  needed  to  be 
singled  out  for  special  treatment.  It  must  be  admitted  that 
Paul  is  interested  in  the  late  date  at  which  it  occurred — 
fourteen  years  after  the  first  visit  or  fourteen  years  after  the 
conversion.  Probably,  therefore,  it  was  the  first  real  con- 
ference which  Paul  held  with  the  original  apostles  on  the  sub- 
ject of  his  Gentile  work.  If  the  famine  visit  had  involved  such 
a  conference,  probably  Paul  would  have  mentioned  that  visit. 
But  if  (as  is  not  improbable  on  independent  grounds)  the 
apostles  were  away  from  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  famine 
visit,  and  if  that  visit  occurred  long  after  Paul  had  been  well 
launched  upon  his  distinctive  work,  and  if  it  had  given  the 
Judaizers  so  little  basis  for  their  contentions  that  they  had 
not  thought  it  worth  while  to  draw  it  into  the  discussion,  then 
Paul  was  not  obliged  to  mention  it.  Paul  is  not  constructing 
an  argument  which  would  hold  against  all  possible  attacks, 
but  rather  is  meeting  the  attacks  which  had  actually  been 
launched.  In  the  second  chapter,  having  finished  proving  that 
in  the  decisive  early  period  before  he  was  well  engaged  in  his 
distinctive  work  there  was  not  even  any  extended  contact  with 
the  original  apostles  at  all,  he  proceeds  to  the  telling  argu- 
ment that  the  very  men  who  were  appealed  to  by  the  Judaizers 
themselves  had  admitted  that  he  was  entirely  independent  of 
them  and  that  they  had  nothing  to  add  to  him.  If  the  famine 
visit  had  occurred  in  the  early  period,  or  if,  whenever  it  oc- 
curred, it  had  involved  the  important  event  of  a  conference 
with  the  apostles  about  the  Pauline  gospel,  in  either  case  Paul 
would  probably  have  been  obliged  to  mention  it.  But,  as  it  is, 
the  visit,  according  to  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25,  did  not  occur  until 
Paul  had  already  been  engaged  in  the  Gentile  work,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  involved  any  contact  with  the 
original  apostles.  The  omission  of  the  famine  visit  from  Gala- 
tians,  therefore,  as  a  visit  distinct  from  Gal.  ii.  1-10,  does  not 
absolutely  require  either  the  identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with 
that  famine  visit  or  the  denial  of  the  historicity  of  Acts. 

Certain  other  difficulties  emerge,  however,  when  Gal.  ii.  1-10 
is  compared  with  Acts  xv.  1-29  in  detail. 

In  the  first  place,  the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church, 
it  is  said,  are  represented  in  Acts  xv.  1-29  as  maintaining  Paul- 
ine principles,  whereas  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10  it  appears  that  there 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        87 

was  really  a  fundamental  difference  between  them  and  Paul. 
This  difficulty  constitutes  an  objection  not  against  the  identifi- 
cation of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xv.  1-29  but  against  the  his- 
toricity of  Acts,  for  if  at  any  time  there  was  a  really  funda- 
mental difference  of  principle  between  Paul  and  the  original 
apostles  then  the  whole  representation  in  Acts  is  radically  in- 
correct. But  the  objection  disappears  altogether  when  Gala- 
tians  is  correctly  interpreted.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
does  not  represent  the  conference  between  Paul  and  the  pillars 
of  the  Jerusalem  Church  as  resulting  in  a  cold  agreement  to 
disagree;  on  the  contrary  it  represents  those  leaders  as  giving 
to  Paul  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  And 
Gal.  ii.  11-21,  rightly  interpreted,  attests  positively  a  real 
unity  of  principle  as  existing  between  Paul  and  Peter. 

The  one  objection  that  remains  against  the  identification  of 
Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xv.  1-29  concerns  the  "Apostolic  De- 
cree" of  Acts  xv.  28,  29  (compare  Acts  xv.  19,  20;  xxi.  25). 
According  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  the  apostles  at  the 
time  of  the  conference  "added  nothing"  to  Paul  (Gal.  ii.  6)  ; 
according  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  it  is  argued,  they  added  some- 
thing very  important  indeed — namely,  the  requirements  of  the 
Apostolic  Decree  that  the  Gentile  Christians  should  "refrain 
from  things  offered  to  idols  and  from  blood  and  from  things 
strangled  and  from  fornication."  Since  these  requirements  are 
partly  at  least  ceremonial,  they  seem  to  constitute  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  principle  of  Gentile  freedom,  and  there- 
fore an  addition  to  Paul's  gospel.  If  when  Paul  presented  to 
the  original  apostles  the  gospel  which  he  was  preaching  among 
the  Gentiles,  involving  the  free  offer  of  salvation  apart  from 
the  Law,  the  apostles  emended  that  gospel  by  requiring  at 
least  certain  parts  of  the  ceremonial  Law,  were  they  not  "add- 
ing" something  to  Paul? 

But  are  the  provisions  of  the  decree  really  ceremonial? 
Apparently  they  are  in  part  ceremonial  if  the  so-called  "Neutral 
text"  attested  by  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  the  Codex  Vati- 
canus  be  correct.  According  to  this  text,  which  here  lies  at 
the  basis  of  all  forms  of  our  English  Bible,  "blood"  can 
hardly  refer  to  anything  except  meat  that  has  the  blood 
left  in  it  or  else  blood  that  might  be  prepared  separately  for 
food;  for  "things  strangled"  certainly  refers  to  a  closely 
related  provision  of  the  ceremonial  Law  about  food.  But  at 


88  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

this  point  any  interesting  textual  question  arises.  The  so- 
called  "Western  text"  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  attested  by  the 
Codex  Bezae  and  the  usual  companion  witnesses,  omits  the 
word  translated  "things  strangled"  or  "what  is  strangled"  in 
Acts  xv.  20,  29;  xxi.  25,  and  in  the  first  two  of  these  three 
passages  adds  the  negative  form  of  the  Golden  Rule.  Thus  the 
Western  text  reads  in  Acts  xv.  28,  29  as  follows:  "For  it  has 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us  to  lay  no  further 
burden  upon  you  except  these  necessary  things — that  you  re- 
frain from  things  offered  to  idols  and  from  blood  and  from 
fornication,  and  that  you  do  not  to  another  whatsoever  things 
you  do  not  wish  to  be  done  to  you."  It  is  generally  agreed 
that  the  Golden  Rule  has  here  been  added  by  a  copyist ;  but  the 
omission  of  "things  strangled"  is  thought  by  many  modern 
scholars  to  preserve  the  reading  of  the  autograph.  If  this 
short  text  without  "things  strangled"  be  correct,  then  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Decree  need  not  be  regarded  as  ceremonial  at 
all,  but  may  be  taken  as  simply  moral.  "Things  offered 
to  idols"  may  refer  to  idolatry  in  general;  "blood"  may  refer 
to  murder ;  and  "fornication"  may  be  meant  in  the  most  general 
sense.  But  if  the  provisions  of  the  Decree  were  simply  moral, 
then  plainly  they  did  not  constitute  any  "addition"  to  the 
message  of  freedom  which  Paul  proclaimed  among  the  Gentiles. 
Paul  himself  had  of  course  enjoined  upon  his  converts  the 
necessity  of  leading  a  true  moral  life.  If  when  the  original 
apostles  were  urged  by  the  Judaizers  to  impose  upon  the  Gen- 
tile converts  the  requirements  of  the  ceremonial  Law,  they 
responded,  "No ;  the  only  requirements  to  be  imposed  upon  the 
Gentiles  are  that  they  refrain  from  deadly  sins  like  idolatry, 
murder  and  fornication,"  that  decision  constituted  merely  a 
most  emphatic  confirmation  of  Paul's  gospel  of  freedom. 

The  textual  question  cannot  here  be  discussed  in  detail. 
In  favor  of  the  Western  text,  with  its  omission  of  "things 
strangled,"  may  be  urged  not  only  the  general  principle  of 
textual  criticism  that  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred 
to  the  longer,  but  also  the  special  consideration  that  in  this 
particular  passage  the  shorter  reading  seems  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  two  additions;  (1)  the  word  translated 
"things  strangled,"  and  (2)  the  Golden  Rule.  The  short  text, 
supposing  it  to  be  the  original,  was  ambiguous;  it  might  be 
taken  either  as  ceremonial  ("blood"  meaning  the  eating  of 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        89 

blood)  or  as  moral  ("blood"  meaning  the  shedding  of  blood  or 
murder).  Those  copyists  who  took  it  as  ceremonial,  it  is  main- 
tained, fixed  the  meaning  by  adding  "things  strangled"  (be- 
cause animals  that  were  strangled  had  the  blood  still  in  them, 
so  that  the  eating  of  them  constituted  a  violation  of  the  cere- 
monial Law)  ;  whereas  those  who  took  the  Decree  as  moral  fixed 
the  meaning  by  adding  the  Golden  Rule  as  the  summation  of 
the  moral  law.1 

On  the  other  side  may  be  urged  the  connection  which  seems 
to  exist  between  the  omission  of  "things  strangled"  and  the 
manifest  gloss  constituted  by  the  Golden  Rule.  Documentary 
attestation  of  a  short  text,  without  the  Golden  Rule  and  with- 
out "things  strangled,"  is  exceedingly  scanty  if  not  non-exist- 
ent— Kirsopp  Lake  can  point  only  to  the  witness  of  Irenseus. 
The  omission  of  "things  strangled,"  therefore,  may  be  only  a 
part  of  a  moralizing  of  the  Decree  (carried  out  also  in  the  ad- 
dition of  the  Golden  Rule),  which  would  be  quite  in  accord 
with  that  habit  of  scribes  by  which  they  tended  to  ignore  in 
the  interests  of  moral  commonplaces  what  was  special  and  diffi- 
cult in  the  text  which  they  were  copying.  In  reply,  Lake  in- 
sists that  just  at  the  time  and  at  the  place  where  the  short 
text  (without  "things  strangled")  was  prevalent,  there  was  a 
food  law  for  which  the  long  text  (with  "things  strangled") 
would  have  afforded  welcome  support.  Why  should  the  text 
have  been  modified  just  where  in  its  original  form  it  supported 
the  prevailing  practice  of  the  Church?  The  conclusion  is, 
Lake  believes,  that  if  the  Western  text  prevailed,  despite  the 
welcome  support  which  would  have  been  afforded  by  the  other 
text,  it  was  because  the  Western  text  was  correct.2 

Decision  as  to  the  textual  question  will  depend  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  upon  the  conclusion  which  is  reached  with 
regard  to  the  Western  text  as  a  whole.  The  radical  rejection 
of  that  text  which  was  advocated  by  Westcott  and  Hort  has  by 
no  means  won  universal  approval;  a  number  of  recent  scholars 
are  inclined  at  least  to  pursue  an  eclectic  course,  adopting  now 
the  Western  reading  and  now  the  Neutral  reading  on  the 
basis  of  internal  evidence  in  the  individual  cases.  Others 
believe  that  the  Western  text  and  the  Neutral  text  are  both 
correct,  since  the  Western  text  is  derived  from  an  earlier  edition 

1  See  Lake,  op.  cit.,  pp.  51-53. 

2  Op.  cit.,  pp.  57-59. 


90  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  book,  whereas  the  Neutral  text  represents  a  revised  edi- 
tion issued  by  the  author  himself.1  But  this  hypothesis  affords 
absolutely  no  assistance  in  the  case  of  the  Apostolic  Decree;  for 
the  Western  reading  (if  it  be  interpreted  in  the  purely  non- 
ceremonial  way)  presents  the  Decree  in  a  light  very  different 
from  that  in  which  it  appears  according  to  the  Neutral 
reading.  It  is  impossible  that  the  author  could  have  contra- 
dicted himself  so  directly  and  in  so  important  a  matter. 
Therefore,  if  one  of  the  two  readings  is  due  to  the  author,  the 
other  is  due  to  some  one  else.  Cases  like  this  weigh  heavily 
against  the  hypothesis  of  two  editions  of  the  book;  that  hy- 
pothesis can  be  saved  only  by  supposing  either  that  the  West- 
ern documents  do  not  here  reproduce  correctly  the  original 
Western  form  of  the  book,  or  else  that  the  other  documents  do 
not  here  reproduce  the  original  revised  edition.  In  other 
words,  despite  the  manuscript  evidence,  the  two  editions  of 
the  book  must  here  be  supposed  to  have  been  in  harmony. 
At  any  rate,  then,  whether  or  no  the  hypothesis  of  two  editions 
be  accepted,  a  choice  must  here  be  made  between  the  Neutral 
reading  and  the  Western  reading;  they  cannot  both  be  due  to 
the  author,  since  they  are  contradictory  to  each  other. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  said  that  the  Western  text  of 
the  Book  of  Acts  does  not  commend  itself,  either  as  the  one 
genuine  form  of  the  book,  or  as  an  earlier  edition  of  which  the 
Neutral  text  is  a  revision.  The  Western  readings  are  in- 
teresting; at  times  they  may  contain  genuine  historical  infor- 
mation ;  but  it  seems  unlikely  that  they  are  due  to  the  author. 
Here  and  there  indeed  the  Western  documents  may  preserve  a 
genuine  reading  which  has  been  lost  in  all  other  witnesses  to 
the  text — even  Westcott  and  Hort  did  not  altogether  exclude 
such  a  possibility — but  in  general  the  high  estimate  which 
Westcott  and  Hort  placed  upon  the  Neutral  text  is  justified. 
Thus  there  is  a  possibility  that  the  short  text  of  the  Apostolic 
Decree,  without  "things  strangled,"  is  genuine,  but  it  is  a 
possibility  only. 

If  then,  the  Neutral  text  of  the  Decree  is  corect,  so  that 
the  requirements  of  the  Decree  are  partly  ceremonial,  must  the 

'An  elaborate  attempt  has  recently  been  made  by  Zahn,  in  addition 
to  former  attempts  by  Blass  and  Hilgenfeld,  to  reproduce  the  original 
form  of  the  Western  text,  which  Zahn  believes  to  be  the  earlier  edition  of 
the  book.  See  Zahn,  Die  Urcmsgabe  der  Apostelgeschichte  des  Lucas,  1916 
(Forschungen  zur  Oeschichte  dea  neutestamentlichen  Kanons,  ix.  Teil). 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        91 

Book  of  Acts  here  be  held  to  contradict  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians?  If  the  Decree  really  was  passed  at  the  Apostolic 
Council,  as  Acts  xv.  29  represents,  would  Paul  have  been 
obliged  to  mention  it  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10?  Answering  these  questions 
in  the  affirmative,  a  great  many  scholars  since  the  days  of 
Baur  have  regarded  the  account  which  the  Book  of  Acts  gives 
of  the  Apostolic  Council  as  radically  wrong;  and  since  the 
book  has  thus  failed  to  approve  itself  at  the  point  where 
it  runs  parallel  to  a  recognized  authority,  it  must  be  dis- 
trusted elsewhere  as  well.  The  Apostolic  Council,  especially 
the  Apostolic  Decree,  has  thus  become,  to  use  a  phrase  of  B. 
W.  Bacon,  the  "crux  of  apostolic  history."  x 

It  is  exceedingly  unlikely,  however,  at  any  rate,  that  the 
Decree  has  been  made  up  "out  of  whole  cloth";  for  it  does 
not  coincide  exactly  with  the  usage  of  the  later  Church,  and 
seems  to  be  framed  in  view  of  primitive  conditions.  Even  those 
who  reject  the  narrative  of  Acts  as  it  stands,  therefore,  often 
admit  that  the  Decree  was  really  passed  by  the  early  Jerusalem 
Church;  but  they  maintain  that  it  was  passed  after  Paul's  de- 
parture from  Jerusalem  and  without  his  consent.  This  view 
is  thought  to  be  supported  by  Acts  xxi.  25,  where  James,  it  is 
said,  is  represented,  at  the  time  of  Paul's  last  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem, as  calling  attention  to  the  Decree  as  though  it  were 
something  new.  Acts  xxi.  25  is  thus  thought  to  preserve  a  bit 
of  primitive  tradition  which  is  in  contradiction  to  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  fifteenth  chapter.  Of  course,  however,  the 
verse  as  it  stands  in  the  completed  book  can  only  be  taken  by 
the  unsophisticated  reader  as  referring  to  what  Paul  already 
knew ;  and  it  is  a  grave  question  whether  the  author  of  Acts 
was  unskillful  enough  to  allow  contradictory  representations 
to  stand  unassimilated  in  his  book,  as  the  hypothesis  demands. 
Acts  xxi.  25,  therefore,  is  at  any  rate  not  opposed  to  the  view 
that  the  Decree  was  actually  passed  with  the  consent  of  Paul, 
as  the  fifteenth  chapter  represents. 

But  is  this  representation  really  in  contradiction  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians?  Does  Gal.  ii.  1-10  really  exclude 
the  Apostolic  Decree?  In  order  to  answer  these  questions,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  nature  of  the  Decree. 

*B.  W.  Bacon,  "Acts  versus  Galatians:  the  Crux  of  Apostolic  History," 
in  American  Journal  of  Theology,  xi,  1907,  pp.  454-474.  See  also  "Pro- 
fessor Harnack  on  the  Lukan  Narrative,"  ibid.,  xiii,  1909,  pp.  59-76. 


92  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  Apostolic  Decree,  according  to  Acts  xv.  1-29,  did  not 
constitute  a  definition  of  what  was  necessary  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  Gentile  Christians,  but  was  an  attempt  to  solve 
the  problem  of  a  limited  group  of  mixed  communities  where 
Jews  and  Gentiles  were  living  together.  Such  seems  to  be  the 
implication  of  the  difficult  verse,  Acts  xv.  21,  where  James, 
after  he  has  proposed  the  substance  of  the  Decree,  says,  "For 
Moses  has  from  ancient  generations  in  the  several  cities  those 
who  proclaim  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sab- 
bath." These  words  seem  to  mean  that  since  there  are  Jews  in 
the  cities,  and  since  they  are  devoted  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  the 
Gentile  Christians,  in  order  to  avoid  offending  them,  ought  to 
refrain  from  certain  of  those  features  of  the  Gentile  manner 
of  life  which  the  Jews  would  regard  as  most  repulsive.  The 
Law  of  Moses  had  been  read  in  the  cities  from  ancient  genera- 
tions; it  was  venerable;  it  deserved  at  least  respect.  Such 
a  respectful  attitude  toward  the  Jewish  way  of  life  would 
contribute  not  only  to  the  peace  of  the  Church  but  also  to 
the  winning  of  the  non-Christian  Jews. 

Was  this  procedure  contrary  to  the  principles  of  Paul? 
He  himself  tells  us  that  it  was  not.  "For  though  I  was  free 
from  all  men,"  he  says,  "I  brought  myself  under  bondage  to 
all,  that  I  might  gain  the  more.  And  to  the  Jews  I  became  as  a 
Jew,  that  I  might  gain  Jews ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law, 
as  under  the  law,  not  being  myself  under  the  law,  that  I  might 
gain  them  that  are  under  the  law;  to  them  that  are  without 
law,  as  without  law,  not  being  without  law  to  God,  but  under 
law  to  Christ,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  without  law.  To 
the  weak  I  became  weak,  that  I  might  gain  the  weak ;  I  am  be- 
come all  things  to  all  men,  that  I  may  by  all  means  save  some."  * 
The  Apostolic  Decree  was  simply  a  particular  case  of  becoming 
to  the  Jews  as  a  Jew  that  Jews  might  be  gained.  Indeed  it  was 
a  rather  mild  case  of  that  kind ;  and  the  conjecture  may  be  ven- 
tured that  Paul  was  often  very  much  more  accommodating 
than  the  Decree  would  demand.  Paul  was  not  the  man  to  in- 
sist upon  blatant  disregard  of  Jewish  feelings  where  Jews 
were  to  be  won  to  Christ. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Paul,  according  to  his  Epis- 
tles, did  not  demand  that  Jewish  Christians   should  give  up 
keeping  the  Law,  but  only  required  them  not  to  force  the  keep- 
*1  Cor.  ix.  19-22,  American  Revised  Version. 


THE   TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        93 

ing  of  the  Law  upon  the  Gentiles.  No  doubt  the  observance 
of  the  Law  on  the  part  of  Jewish  Christians  was  to  be  very 
different  in  spirit  from  their  pre-Christian  legalism;  they  were 
no  longer  to  regard  the  Law  as  a  means  of  salvation.  But 
after  salvation  had  been  obtained,  they  might  well  believe  that 
it  was  God's  will  for  them  to  continue  to  live  as  Jews ;  and 
Paul,  according  to  his  Epistles,  had  no  objection  to  that  belief. 
But  how  were  the  Jewish  Christians  to  carry  out  their  ob- 
servance of  the  Law?  Various  requirements  of  the  Law  were 
held  to  imply  that  Israelites  should  keep  separate  from  Gen- 
tiles. How  then  could  the  Jewish  Christians  live  in  close  broth- 
erly intercourse  with  the  Gentile  members  of  the  Christian 
community  without  transgressing  the  Law  of  Moses?  There 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Paul  from  the  beginning  had  a. 
hard  and  fast  solution  of  this  problem.  Undoubtedly,  the 
tendency  of  his  practice  led  toward  the  complete  abandonment 
of  the  ceremonial  Law  in  the  interests  of  Christian  unity  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles.  He  was  very  severe  upon  those  Jew- 
ish Christians  who,  though  convinced  in  their  hearts  of  the 
necessity  of  giving  precedence  to  the  new  principle  of  unity, 
yet  separated  themselves  from  the  Gentiles  through  fear  of 
men  (Gal.  ii.  11-21).  But  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  he 
condemned  on  principle  those  who  truly  believed  that  Jewish 
Christians  should  still  keep  the  Law.  With  regard  to  these 
matters  he  was  apparently  content  to  wait  for  the  clearer 
guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  would  finally  work  out 
the  unity  of  the  Church.  Meanwhile  the  Apostolic  Decree  was 
an  attempt  to  solve  the  problem  of  mixed  communities  ;  and  that 
attempt  was  in  harmony  with  the  principles  which  Paul  enun- 
ciated in  1  Cor.  ix.  19-22. 

Moreover,  the  Apostolic  Decree  was  in  accord  with  Paul's 
principle  of  regard  for  the  weaker  brother  (1  Cor.  viii ;  Rom. 
xiv).  In  Corinth,  certain  brethren  were  offended  by  the  eat- 
ing of  meat  which  had  been  offered  to  idols.  Paul  himself  was 
able  to  eat  such  food;  for  he  recognized  that  the  idols  were 
nothing.  But  for  some  of  the  members  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity the  partaking  of  such  food  would  mean  the  deadly  sin 
of  idolatry ;  and  out  of  regard  for  them  Paul  is  ready  to  forego 
his  freedom.  The  case  was  very  similar  in  the  mixed  com- 
munities contemplated  in  the  Apostolic  Decree.  The  similarity, 
of  course,  appears  on  the  surface  in  the  first  prohibition  of 


94  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  Decree,  which  concerns  things  offered  to  idols.  But  the 
two  other  prohibitions  about  food  are  not  really  very  different. 
The  use  of  blood  was  intimately  associated  with  heathen 
cults,  and  the  eating  of  meat  with  the  blood  still  in  it  ("things 
strangled")  would  also,  because  of  deep-seated  religious  ideas, 
seem  to  a  devout  Jew  to  involve  idolatry.  It  is  very  doubt- 
ful, therefore,  whether  those  prohibitions  of  the  Decree  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  designate  as  "ceremonial"  were  felt  to  be 
ceremonial  by  those  for  whose  benefit  the  Decree  was  adopted. 
They  were  probably  not  felt  to  be  ceremonial  any  more  than 
the  prohibition  of  things  offered  to  idols  was  felt  to  be  cere- 
monial by  the  weaker  brethren  at  Corinth.  Rather  they  were 
felt  to  involve  the  deadly  sin  of  idolatry. 

Finally,  the  Apostolic  Decree  was  of  limited  range  of 
application ;  it  was  addressed,  not  to  Gentile  Christians  gen- 
erally, but  only  to  those  in  Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia  (Acts 
xv.  23).  The  Book  of  Acts,  it  is  true,  does  declare,  after  the 
mention  of  Derbe  and  Lystra  in  connection  with  the  beginning 
of  the  second  missionary  journey,  that  Paul  and  Silas  "as 
they  went  on  their  way  through  the  cities  .  .  .  delivered  them 
the  decrees  to  keep  which  had  been  ordained  of  the  apostles 
and  elders  that  were  at  Jerusalem"  (Acts  xvi.  4).  According 
to  this  passage  the  observance  of  the  Decree  does  seem  to 
have  been  extended  into  Lycaonia,  and  thus  beyond  the  limits 
set  forth  in  the  Decree  itself.  But  if  Paul  chose  to  make  use  of 
the  document  beyond  the  range  originally  contemplated,  that 
does  not  alter  the  fact  that  originally  the  Jerusalem  Church 
undertook  to  deal  only  with  Antioch  and  Syria  and  Cilicia. 
In  Acts  xxi.  25,  indeed,  the  reference  of  James  to  the  Decree 
does  not  mention  the  geographical  limitation.  But  James  was 
thinking  no  doubt  particularly  of  those  regions  wbrre  there 
were  the  largest  bodies  of  Jews,  and  he  does  not  say  that  the 
Jerusalem  Church,  even  if  the  Decree  represented  its  own  de- 
sires for  all  Gentiles,  had  actually  sent  the  Decree  to  all.  The 
general  reference  in  Acts  xxi.  25  may  therefore  fairly  be  in- 
terpreted in  the  light  of  the  more  particular  information  given 
in  Acts  xv.  23.  It  is  thus  unnecessary  to  follow  Wendt,  who, 
after  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  historicity  of  the  Decree,  concludes 
that  the  Decree  was  actually  passed  by  the  Jerusalem  Church 
in  the  presence  of  Paul  as  the  Book  of  Acts  represents,  but 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        95 

supposes  that  the  author  of  Acts  has  erred  in  giving  the  deci- 
sion a  wider  range  of  application  than  was  really  contem- 
plated.1 A  correct  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  ques- 
tion will  remove  even  this  last  vestige  of  objection  to  the  Lucan 
account. 

But  if  the  Decree  was  addressed  only  to  Antioch  and  Syria 
and  Cilicia,  it  was  not  imposed  upon  specifically  Pauline 
churches.  The  Gentile  work  at  Antioch  had  not  been  started 
by  Paul,  and  it  is  a  question  how  far  he  regarded  the  churches 
of  Syria  and  Cilicia  in  general  as  belonging  to  his  peculiar 
province.  Undoubtedly  he  had  labored  long  in  those  regions, 
but  others  had  shared  his  labors  and  in  some  places  had  even 
preceded  him.  These  other  missionaries  had  come  from  Jeru- 
salem. Paul  may  well  therefore  have  recognized  the  authority 
of  the  Jerusalem  leaders  over  the  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia 
in  a  way  which  would  not  have  been  in  pla.ce  at  Ephesus  or 
Corinth,  especially  since  the  Jewish  Christian  element  in  the 
Syrian  and  Cilician  churches  was  probably  very  strong. 

The  adoption  of  the  Apostolic  Decree  by  the  Jerusalem 
Church  was  thus  not  derogatory  in  general  to  the  apostolic 
dignity  of  Paul,  or  contrary  to  his  principles.  But  is  the 
Decree  excluded,  in  particular,  by  the  words  of  Paul  in  Gala- 
tians?  Paul  says  that  the  pillars  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
"added  nothing"2  to  him  (Gal.  ii.  6).  The  meaning  of  these 
words  must  be  examined  with  some  care. 

Undoubtedly  the  word  here  translated  "added" — it  may 
perhaps  be  better  translated  "imparted  nothing  to  me  in  addi- 
tion"— is  to  be  understood  in  conjunction  with  Gal.  ii.  2, 
where  the  same  Greek  word  is  used,  but  without  the  preposition 
which  means  "in  addition."  The  sense  of  the  two  verses — 
they  are  separated  by  the  important  digression  about  Titus — 
is  thus  as  follows :  "When  I  laid  my  gospel  before  the  leaders, 
they  laid  nothing  before  me  in  addition."  That  is,  they  de- 
clared, after  listening  to  Paul's  gospel,  that  they  had  nothing 
to  add  to  it;  Christ  had  given  it  to  Paul  directly;  it  was  suf- 
ficient and  complete.  The  question,  therefore,  in  connection 
with  the  Apostolic  Decree  is  not  whether  the  Decree  was  or 
was  not  something  important  that  the  Jerusalem  leaders  im- 

1Wendt,    Die    Apostelgeschichte,    1913,    in    Meyer,    Kritisch-exegetischer 
Kommentar  iiber  das  Neue  Testament,  9te  Aufl.,  p.  237. 
3    ovdkv 


96  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

parted  to  Paul,  but  only  whether  it  constituted  an  addition 
to  his  gospel.  If  it  constituted  an  addition  to  his  gospel,  then 
it  is  excluded  by  Paul's  words  in  Galatians,  and  is  unhistorical. 
But  as  it  has  been  interpreted  above,  it  certainly  did  not  con- 
stitute an  addition  to  Paul's  gospel.  Paul's  gospel  consisted 
in  the  offer  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles  through  faith  alone 
apart  from  the  works  of  the  law.  The  Jerusalem  leaders  recog- 
nized that  gospel ;  they  had  absolutely  nothing  to  add  to  it ; 
Paul  had  revealed  the  way  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles  exactly 
as  it  had  been  revealed  to  him  by  God.  But  the  recognition 
of  the  Pauline  gospel  of  salvation  by  faith  alone  did  not  solve 
all  the  practical  problems  of  the  Christian  life;  in  particular 
it  did  not  solve  the  problem  of  the  mixed  churches.  It  would 
have  been  unnatural  if  the  conference  had  not  proceeded  to  a 
consideration  of  such  problems,  and  Paul's  words  do  not  at  all 
exclude  such  consideration. 

Certainly  some  sort  of  public  pronouncement  on  the  part 
of  the  Jerusalem  leaders  was  imperatively  demanded.  The 
Judaizers  had  made  trouble  in  Antioch,  Syria,  and  Cilicia — 
that  much  of  the  account  in  Acts  is  generally  admitted  to  be 
historical  and  is  certainly  necessary  to  account  for  the  very 
fact  that  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem,  the  revelation  which  came 
to  him  being  given  by  God  in  relation  to  a  very  definite  situa- 
tion. Against  his  inclination  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  in  order 
to  stop  the  propaganda  of  the  Judaizers  by  obtaining  a  pro- 
nouncement from  the  very  authorities  to  which  they  appealed. 
Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  he  returned  to  Antioch  without  the 
pronouncement  which  he  had  sought?  If  he  had  done  so  his 
journey  would  have  been  in  vain;  the  Judaizers  would  have 
continued  to  make  trouble  exactly  as  before.  Some  kind  of 
public  pronouncement  was  therefore  evidently  sought  by  Paul 
himself  from  the  Jerusalem  leaders.  No  doubt  the  very  seeking 
of  such  a  pronouncement  was  open  to  misunderstanding;  it 
might  seem  to  involve  subordination  of  Paul  to  the  authorities 
to  whom  apparently  he  was  appealing  as  to  a  higher  instance. 
Paul  was  keenly  aware  of  such  dangers,  and  waited  for  definite 
guidance  of  God  before  he  decided  to  make  the  journey.  But 
if  he  had  come  back  from  Jerusalem  without  any  such  pro- 
nouncement of  the  authorities  as  would  demonstrate  the  falsity 
of  the  Judaizers'  appeal  to  them,  then  the  disadvantages  of 
the  conference  would  have  been  incurred  in  vain.  In  all  proba- 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        97 

bility,  therefore,  the  conference  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10,  if  it  took 
place  at  the  time  reached  by  the  narrative  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  resulted  in  a  pronouncement 
from  the  Jerusalem  Church.  And  the  Apostolic  Decree  was 
just  such  a  pronouncement  as  might  have  been  expected.  It 
was  public ;  it  was  an  emphatic  vindication  of  Gentile  freedom 
and  an  express  rebuke  of  the  Judaizers ;  and  it  dealt  with  some 
at  least  of  the  practical  difficulties  which  would  result  from 
the  presence  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  churches  of  Syria  and 
Cilicia. 

The  identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with  Acts  xv.  1-29,  there- 
fore, does  not  raise  insuperable  difficulties  against  the  accept- 
ance as  historical  of  the  narrative  in  Acts.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  alternative  identification — with  Acts  xi. 
30 ;  xii.  25 — is  also  possible.  The  comparison  between  Acts 
and  Galatians,  therefore,  has  certainly  not  resulted  disastrously 
for  the  Book  of  Acts ;  there  are  three  ways  in  which  Acts 
can  be  shown  to  be  in  harmony  with  Paul.  These  three  possi- 
bilities may  now  conveniently  be  summed  up  in  the  light  of  the 
examination  of  them  in  the  preceding  pages. 

(1)  Galatians  ii.  1-10  may  be  regarded  as  an  account 
of  the  famine  visit  of  Acts  xi.  30 ;  xii.  25 ;  and  on  the  basis 
of  this  identification  the  Epistle  may  be  dated  before  the 
Apostolic  Council  of  Acts  xv.  1-29.  The  course  of  events 
would  then  be  somewhat  as  follows :  First  there  was  a  private 
conference  between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles  (Gal.  ii.  1- 
10)  at  the  time  of  the  famine  visit  (Acts  xi.  30;  xii.  25). 
Then  followed  the  first  missionary  journey  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas to  Southern  Galatia  (Acts  xiii,  xiv).  That  journey 
brought  a  great  influx  of  Gentiles  into  the  Church  and  aroused 
the  active  opposition  of  the  Judaizers.  The  trouble  seems  to 
have  been  accentuated  by  the  coming  to  Antioch  of  certain 
men  from  James  (Gal.  ii.  11-13).  It  is  not  clear  whether  they 
themselves  were  to  blame,  or  whether,  if  they  were,  they  had 
any  commission  from  James.  At  any  rate,  Peter  was  induced 
to  give  up  the  table  companionship  with  Gentile  Christians 
which  formerly  he  had  practiced  at  Antioch,  and  Barnabas  also 
was  carried  away.  Paul  rebuked  Peter  publicly.  But  the 
Judaizers  continued  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and 
even  demanded,  as  a  thing  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation, 
that  the  Gentile  Christians  should  be  circumcised  and  should 


98  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

keep  the  Law  of  Moses.  The  Judaizing  activity  extended  also 
into  Galatia,  and  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in 
the  midst  of  the  conflict.  At  Antioch  it  was  finally  determined 
to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Jerusalem  leaders 
in  order  to  show  that  the  Judaizers  had  no  right  to  appeal  to 
those  leaders,  and  in  order  to  silence  the  Judaizers  by  a  public 
pronouncement  of  the  Jerusalem  Church.  A  revelation  induced 
Paul  to  agree  to  this  plan.  The  result  was  the  Apostolic 
Council  of  Acts  xv.  1-29. 

Undoubtedly  this  account  of  the  matter  overcomes  certain 
difficulties.  It  has  won  considerable  support,  and  can  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  a  mere  apologetic  expedient. 

(2)  The  Western  text  of  the  Apostolic  Decree  may  be 
regarded  as  correct.     The  Decree  may  then  be  taken  as  for- 
bidding only  the  three  deadly  sins   of  idolatry,  murder,   and 
fornication,  so  that  it  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  taken  as 
a  limitation  of  Gentile  freedom  or  an  addition  to  Paul's  gospel 
of  justification  by  faith  alone.     This  solution  has  been  adopted 
by  Von  Harnack  and  others ;  and  by  Kirsopp  Lake,1  certainly 
without  any  "apologetic"  motive,  it  has  actually  been  combined 
with  (1).   * 

(3)  Finally,  Gal.  ii.  1-10  being  identified  with  Acts  xv. 
1-29,   and   the   Neutral   text    of   the   Apostolic    Decree   being 
adopted,  harmony  between  Acts  and  Galatians  may  be  estab- 
lished by  that  interpretation  of  both  passages  which  has  been 
proposed  above.    According  to  this  interpretation,  the  Decree 
was  not  regarded  as  necessary  to  salvation  or  intended  as  an 
addition  to  Paul's  gospel,  but  was  an  attempt  to  solve  the  spe- 
cial and  temporary  problem  of  the  mixed  communities  in  Syria 
and  Cilicia. 

This  last  solution  being  adopted  provisionally  (though 
(1)  certainly  has  much  in  its  favor),  the  outcome  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Council  must  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  events 
that  followed.  Apparently  Paul  in  Galatians  is  telling  only 
what  happened  in  a  private  conference  between  himself  and 
the  Jerusalem  leaders,  the  account  of  the  public  action  of  the 
Church  being  found  in  Acts.  James  and  Peter  and  John 
recognized  the  independence  of  Paul's  apostleship;  Paul  had 
been  intrusted  with  the  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles  as  Peter 

1  In  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911.     It  will  be  remembered  that 
Lake  has  now  radically  modified  his  views.     See  above,  p.  81,  footnote  3. 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM        99 

with  that  to  the  circumcision.  After  listening  to  Paul's  ac- 
count of  the  wonderful  works  of  God  by  which  his  ministry 
had  been  blessed,  and  after  coming  into  direct  contact  with 
the  grace  which  had  been  given  to  him,  the  pillars  of  the  Jeru- 
salem Church  gave  to  him  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of 
fellowship  that  they  should  go  to  the  Gentiles  while  the  Jeru- 
salem leaders  should  go  to  the  circumcision.  This  division 
of  labor  has  often  been  egregiously  misinterpreted,  especially 
by  the  Tiibingen  school  and  all  those  in  subsequent  years  who 
have  not  been  able  to  throw  off  the  shackles  of  Tiibingenism. 
The  question  has  often  been  asked  whether  the  division  was 
meant  geographically  or  ethnographically.  Was  Paul  to 
preach  everywhere  outside  of  Palestine  both  to  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, while  the  original  apostles  were  to  labor  in  Palestine  only ; 
or  was  Paul  to  preach  to  Gentiles  wherever  found,  while  the 
original  apostles  were  to  labor  for  Jews  wherever  found?  In 
other  words,  to  whose  province  were  assigned  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion — to  the  province  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  or  to  the 
province  of  the  original  apostles?  It  has  sometimes  been 
maintained  that  Paul  understood  the  division  geographically, 
but  that  the  Jerusalem  leaders  understood  it  ethnographically ; 
so  that  Peter  transgressed  Paul's  geographical  interpretation 
when  he  went  to  labor  in  Antioch.  But  the  very  raising  of  the 
whole  question  is  in  itself  a  fundamental  error.  The  division 
was  not  meant  in  an  exclusive  or  negative  sense  at  all;  it  was 
not  intended  to  prevent  Peter  from  laboring  among  Gentiles 
or  Paul  from  laboring  among  Jews.  The  same  gospel  was 
being  preached  by  both  Paul  and  Peter;  they  gave  each  other 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  What  was  meant  was  simply  a 
general  recognition  of  the  dispensation  of  God  which  had  so 
far  prevailed.  By  that  dispensation  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
been  sent  particularly  to  the  Gentiles  and  the  Jerusalem 
apostles  to  the  Jews.  If  either  group  was  hindered  in  its 
work,  the  interests  of  the  Church  would  suffer.  Both  groups, 
therefore,  were  absolutely  necessary  in  order  that  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  should  be  won. 

In  one  particular,  indeed,  the  Jerusalem  leaders  requested 
expressly  that  the  division  of  labor  should  not  be  taken  too 
strictly ;  they  hoped  that  Paul  would  not  be  so  much  engrossed 
in  his  Gentile  work  as  to  forget  the  poor  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  (Gal.  ii.  10).  It  should  be  observed  very  carefully 


100  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

that  this  request  about  the  poor  forms  an  exception,  not  at 
all  to  the  full  recognition  of  Paul's  gospel,  but  only  to  the 
division  of  labor  as  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  does  not 
go  with  the  remote  words  of  verse  6  ("for  to  me  those  who 
were  of  repute  added  nothing"),  but  with  the  immediately  ad- 
jacent words  in  verse  9.  Paul  does  not  say,  therefore,  "To 
me  those  of  repute  added  (or  imposed)  nothing  except  that 
I  should  remember  the  Jerusalem  poor."  If  he  had  said  that, 
then  perhaps  it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  the  omission  of 
the  Apostolic  Decree;  for  the  Decree  as  much  as  the  request 
for  aid  of  the  Jerusalem  poor  was  something  that  the  Jeru- 
salem leaders  laid  upon  him.  But  the  fact  is  that  neither 
the  Decree  nor  the  request  about  the  poor  has  anything  what- 
ever to  do  with  Paul's  gospel  or  the  attitude  of  the  Jerusalem 
leaders  toward  it.  What  is  really  meant  by  the  request  for 
aid  is  simply  this:  "You  are  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles;  it  is 
a  great  work;  we  wish  you  Godspeed  in  it.  But  even  in  so 
great  a  work  as  that,  do  not  forget  your  needy  Jewish  brethren 
in  Jerusalem." 

After  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  Paul  and  Barnabas  re- 
turned to  Antioch.  According  to  the  Book  of  Acts  the  letter 
of  the  Jerusalem  Church  was  joyfully  received;  it  meant  a 
confirmation  of  Gentile  freedom  and  relief  from  the  attacks 
of  the  Judaizers.  But  new  disturbances  began,  and  Peter 
was  concerned  in  them.  He  had  gone  to  Antioch.  There  is 
not  the  slightest  reason  to  think  that  his  arrival  occasioned 
anything  but  joy.  The  notion  that  Paul  was  jealously  guard- 
ing his  rights  in  a  Gentile  church  and  resented  the  coming  of 
Peter  as  an  intrusion  has  not  the  slightest  basis  either  in  Acts 
or  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  But  at  Antioch  Jews  and  Gentiles 
were  living  together  in  the  Church,  and  their  juxtaposition 
presented  a  serious  problem.  The  Gentile  Christians,  it  will 
be  remembered,  had  been  released  from  the  obligation  of  being 
circumcised  and  of  undertaking  to  keep  the  Mosaic  Law.  The 
Jewish  Christians,  on  the  other  hand,  had  not  been  required 
to  give  up  their  ancestral  mode  of  life.  But  how  could  the 
Jewish  Christians  continue  to  live  under  the  Law  if  they  held 
companionship  with  Gentiles  in  a  way  which  would  render  the 
strict  observance  of  the  Law  impossible?  Should  the  prece- 
dence be  given  to  the  observance  of  the  Law  on  the  part  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  or  to  the  new  principle  of  Christian 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      101 

unity?  This  question  had  not  been  settled  by  the  Apostolic 
Council,  for  even  if  the  Gentile  Christians  observed  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Apostolic  Decree,  table  companionship  with 
them  would  still  have  seemed  to  involve  a  transgression  of  the 
Law.  Peter,  however,  took  a  step  beyond  what  had  already 
been  settled;  he  relaxed  the  strictness  of  his  Jewish  manner 
of  life  by  eating  with  the  Gentiles.  He  was  convinced  of  the 
revolutionary  change  wrought  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
gave  practical  expression  to  his  conviction  by  holding  full 
companionship  with  all  his  brethren.  After  a  time,  however, 
and  perhaps  during  an  absence  of  Paul  from  the  city,  certain 
men  came  from  James,  and  their  coming  occasioned  difficulty. 
It  is  not  said  that  these  men  were  commissioned  by  James,  and 
some  readers  have  thought  that  "from  James"  means  merely 
"from  Jerusalem,"  James  being  named  merely  as  representa- 
tive of  the  church  over  which  he  presided.  But  even  if  the 
newcomers  stood  in  some  closer  relationship  to  James,  or  even 
had  been  sent  by  him,  it  is  an  unwarranted  assumption  that 
James  was  responsible  for  the  trouble  that  they  caused,  or 
had  sent  them  to  Antioch  with  the  purpose  of  limiting  the 
freedom  of  Peter's  conduct.  They  may  have  abused  whatever 
commission  they  had  received.  Moreover,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  they  are  not  expressly  blamed  by  Paul.  If  they 
clung  conscientiously  to  the  keeping  of  the  Law,  as  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  do  at  Jerusalem,  Paul  would  perhaps  not 
necessarily  condemn  them;  for  he  did  not  on  principle  or  in 
all  circumstances  require  Jewish  Christians  to  give  up  the 
keeping  of  the  Law.  But  Peter  had  really  transcended  that 
point  of  view ;  and  when,  therefore,  he  now,  from  fear  of  these 
newcomers,  withdrew  from  the  Gentiles,  he  was  concealing  his 
true  convictions.  It  was  the  inconsistency  of  his  conduct  that 
Paul  felt  called  upon  to  rebuke.  That  inconsistency  could  not 
fail  to  have  a  bad  effect  upon  the  Gentile  Christians.  Peter 
had  received  them  into  true  fellowship.  But  now  apparently 
he  regarded  such  liberal  conduct  as  a  thing  to  be  ashamed  of 
and  to  be  concealed.  The  Gentile  Christians  could  not  help 
drawing  the  conclusion  that  they  were  at  best  only  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  Christian  community ;  the  chief  of  the  original 
apostles  of  Jesus  was  apparently  ashamed  of  his  association 
with  them.  Despite  the  liberty  granted  by  the  Apostolic  Coun- 
cil, therefore,  the  Gentile  Christians  were  again  tempted  to 


.*    -:-•-••.-••• 
:••.::-!. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 


remove  the  disabilities  which  rested  upon  them,  by  accepting 
circumcision  and  so  becoming  full  members  of  the  Church. 
Evidently  the  keeping  of  the  Law  on  the  part  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians was  a  half-way  position.  But  when  it  was  pursued  con- 
scientiously, as  a  duty  still  resting  upon  men  of  Jewish  descent, 
it  might  possibly  be  dealt  with  gently  by  Paul.  When,  how- 
ever, it  was  undertaken  for  fear  of  men,  in  the  face  of  better 
understanding,  it  became  "hypocrisy"  and  was  rebuked 
sharply.  If  the  transcending  of  the  Law,  in  the  interests 
of  Christian  unity,  had  once  been  grasped  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence of  the  redemption  wrought  by  Christ,  then  to  repudi- 
ate it  was  to  bring  discredit  upon  Christ  Himself,  and  make 
His  death  of  none  avail. 

The  influence  of  Peter's  withdrawal  from  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians soon  began  to  make  itself  felt;  other  Jewish  Christians 
followed  Peter's  example,  and  even  Barnabas  was  carried  away. 
A  serious  crisis  had  arisen.  But  God  had  not  deserted  His 
Church.  The  Church  was  saved  through  the  instrumentality 
of  Paul. 

To  Paul  had  been  revealed  the  full  implications  of  the 
gospel;  to  him  the  freedom  of  the  Gentiles  was  a  matter  of 
principle,  and  when  principle  was  at  stake  he  never  kept 
silent.  Regardless  of  all  petty  calculations  about  the  influence 
that  might  be  lost  or  the  friendships  that  might  be  sacrificed, 
he  spoke  out  boldly  for  Christ ;  he  rebuked  Peter  openly  before 
the  assembled  Church.  It  should  always  be  observed,  however, 
that  it  was  not  the  principles  of  Peter,  but  his  conduct,  which 
Paul  was  rebuking.  The  incident  is  therefore  misused  when 
it  is  made  to  establish  a  fundamental  disagreement  between 
Paul  and  Peter.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  very  act  of  con- 
demning the  practice  of  Peter,  Paul  approves  his  principles ; 
he  is  rebuking  Peter  just  for  the  concealment  of  his  correct 
principles  for  fear  of  men.  He  and  Peter,  he  says,  were  per- 
fectly agreed  about  the  inadequacy  of  the  Law,  and  the  all- 
sufficiency  of  faith  in  Christ;  why  then  should  Peter  act  in 
contradiction  to  these  great  convictions?  The  passage,  Gal. 
ii.  11-21,  therefore,  far  from  establishing  a  fundamental  dis- 
agreement between  Peter  and  Paul  really  furnishes  the  strong- 
est possible  evidence  for  their  fundamental  unity. 

But  how  did  Peter  take  the  rebuke  which  was  administered 
to  him?  There  should  be  no  real  doubt  about  the  answer  to 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      103 

this  question.  Details,  indeed,  are  uncertain;  it  may  perhaps 
be  doubtful  when  Peter  acquiesced  or  how  he  expressed  his 
acquiescence.  But  that  he  acquiesced  at  some  time  and  in  some 
manner  is  indicated  by  the  whole  subsequent  history  of  the 
Church.  A  contrary  conclusion  has,  indeed,  sometimes  been 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  Paul.  If  Peter  was  convinced  by 
Paul  at  Antioch,  would  not  Paul  have  been  sure  to  mention 
so  gratifying  a  result?  Would  he  not  have  appealed,  against 
the  contentions  of  the  Judaizers  in  Galatia,  to  so  signal  a 
recognition  of  his  apostolic  authority?  This  argument  ignores 
the  true  character  of  the  passage.  During  the  writing  of  Gal. 
ii.  11-21  Paul  has  altogether  ceased  to  think  of  Peter.  What 
he  had  said  to  Peter  at  Antioch  happened  to  be  exactly  the  same 
thing  that  he  desired  to  say,  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the 
letter,  to  the  Galatians.  In  reporting,  not  with  pedantic  verbal 
accuracy  but  in  substance,  what  he  had  said  to  Peter  at  An- 
tioch, he  has  entered  upon  the  very  heart  of  his  gospel,  which 
had  been  despised  by  the  Judaizers  in  Galatia.  Long  before  the 
end  of  the  glorious  passage,  Gal.  ii.  11-21,  he  has  forgotten 
all  about  Peter  and  Barnabas  and  Antioch,  and  is  thinking 
only  about  the  grace  of  Christ  and  the  way  in  which  it  was 
being  made  of  none  effect  by  those  who  would  desert  it  for  a 
religion  of  works.  To  expect  him  to  descend  from  the  heights 
in  order  to  narrate  the  outcome  of  the  incident  at  Antioch 
is  to  do  woeful  injustice  to  the  character  of  the  apostle's 
mind  and  the  manner  of  his  literary  activity.  Gal.  ii.  11-21 
forms  a  transition  between  the  first  main  division  of  the  Epistle, 
in  which  Paul  is  answering  the  personal  attack  of  the  Juda- 
izers, and  the  second  main  division,  in  which  he  is  defending 
the  contents  of  his  gospel.  Before  the  end  of  the  passage 
Paul  has  plunged  into  the  principal  thing  that  he  wanted  to 
say  to  the  Galatians,  who  were  making  void  the  cross  of 
Christ.  The  presentation  in  Gal.  ii.  11-21  of  what  Bengel  1 
called  the  "marrow  of  Christianity"  leads  inevitably,  there- 
fore, not  to  a  pedantic  narration  of  what  Peter  did,  but  to  the 
exclamation  of  Gal.  iii.  1,  "O  foolish  Galatians,  who  did  be- 
witch you,  before  whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  was  openly  set  forth 
crucified?" 

Thus  the  silence  of  Paul  about  the  outcome  of  the  incident 
at  Antioch  does  not  at  all  establish  the  outcome  as  unfavor- 
1  On  Gal.  ii.  19. 


104  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

able.  But  there  are  positive  indications  on  the  other  side* 
Of  course,  if  Gal.  ii.  1-10  were  identified  with  the  famine  visit, 
the  whole  question  would  be  settled.  In  that  case,  the  incident 
of  Gal.  ii.  11-21  would  have  been  followed  by  the  Apostolic 
Council,  at  which  the  harmony  of  Peter  and  Paul  found  full 
expression.  But  even  if  the  identification  of  Gal.  ii.  1-10  with 
the  Apostolic  Council  be  adopted,  there  are  still  plain  indica- 
tions that  the  outcome  of  the  Antioch  incident  was  favorable. 

In  the  first  place,  Paul  mentions  Peter  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5  with 
respect,  as  an  apostle  to  whose  example  appeal  may  be  made; 
in  1  Cor.  iii.  22  he  classes  Peter  with  himself  and  with  Apollos 
as  a  possession  of  all  Christians;  l  and  in  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11  he 
includes  as  part  of  his  fundamental  missionary  preaching  the 
appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  to  Peter,  and  appeals  to  the 
unity  which  existed  between  his  own  preaching  and  that  of 
the  other  apostles  (verses  '5,  II).2 

In  the  second  place,  Paul  concerned  himself  earnestly, 
according  to  1  and  2  Corinthians  and  Romans,  with  the  col- 
lection for  the  Jerusalem  poor.  If  the  incident  at  Antioch 
had  meant  a  repudiation  of  the  "right  hand  of  fellowship" 
which  Peter  in  common  with  James  and  John  had  given  to  Paul 
at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  9),  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Paul  could 
have  continued  to  engage  in  a  form  of  brotherly  service  which 
was  the  most  touching  expression  of  that  fellowship.  If  there 
was  a  permanent  breach  between  Peter  and  Paul,  the  contri- 
bution for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem  could  hardly  have  been 
collected. 

In  the  third  place,  the  agitation  of  the  Judaizers  seems 
to  have  died  down  during  the  third  missionary  journey.  It 
appears,  indeed,  at  Corinth,  according  to  the  Corinthian 
Epistles,  but  seems  there  to  have  lacked  that  insistence  upon 
the  keeping  of  the  Law  which  had  made  it  so  dangerous  in 
Galatia.  In  the  epistles  of  the  captivity — Colossians  and  Phile- 
mon, Ephesians,  Philippians — it  appears,  if  at  all,  only  in  the 
obscure  reference  in  Phil.  iii.  2ff.,  which  may  relate  to  non- 
Christian  Judaism  rather  than  to  Jewish  Christianity.  This 
subsidence  of  the  Judaizing  activity  is  difficult  to  understand 
if  the  benefits  of  the  Jerusalem  conference  had  been  annulled 
by  a  serious  breach  at  Antioch. 

Finally,   the  whole   subsequent   history   of   the   Church   is 

1  Knowling,  The  Witness  of  the  Epistles,  1892,  p.  14,  note  1. 
a  Knowling,  loc.  cit. 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      105 

explicable  only  if  there  was  fundamental  unity  between  Peter 
and  Paul.  Ever  since  the  formation  of  the  Old  Catholic 
Church  at  the  close  of  the  second"  century  the  Church  was 
founded  upon  the  twin  pillars  of  Peter  and  Paul.  How  was 
this  unity  produced  if  in  the  apostolic  age  there  was  funda- 
mental disunion?  The  existence  of  this  problem  was  fully 
recognized  by  F.  C.  Baur,  and  the  recognition  of  it  constitutes 
one  element  of  greatness  in  Baur's  work.  But  the  elaborate 
solution  which  Baur  proposed  has  had  to  be  abandoned.  Baur 
supposed  that  the  harmony  between  Pauline  and  Petrine  Chris- 
tianity was  produced  by  a  gradual  compromise  effected  during 
the  second  century.  Subsequent  investigation  has  pushed  the 
harmony  very  much  further  back.  The  unity  between  Peter* 
and  Paul  appears,  for  example,  plainly  expressed  in  the  letter 
of  Clement  of  Rome  (about  95  A.  D.),  who  appeals  to  the 
two  great  apostles  as  though  both  were  of  recognized  au- 
thority; it  appears  also  in  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  which 
even  if  not  genuine  is  important  as  attributing  to  Peter,  as 
though  the  attribution  were  a  matter  of  course,  a  conception 
of  the  gospel  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  that  of  Paul;  it 
appears  in  the  early  traditional  account  of  John  Mark,  by 
which  Mark  is  made  to  be  a  follower  of  Peter  (compare  1  Peter 
v.  13)  and  to  have  received  from  Peter  the  substance  of  his 
Gospel,  so  that  when  his  cordial  relations  with  Paul  are  re- 
membered (Col.  iv.  10;  Philem.  24)  he  constitutes  an  impor- 
tant link  between  Peter  and  Paul.  What  is  more  important, 
however,  than  all  details,  is  the  undoubted  fact  that  before 
the  end  of  the  first  century  epistles  of  Paul  and  genuine  tradi- 
tion about  Jesus,  which  latter  must  at  first  have  been  con- 
nected with  the  Jerusalem  Church,  appear  side  by  side  as 
possessing  high  authority  in  the  Church.  Finally,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  now  admitted  to  be  at  any  rate 
very  much  earlier  than  Baur  supposed;  and  that  testimony, 
so  far  as  the  harmony  between  Paul  and  Peter  is  concerned, 
is  unequivocal.  Thus  the  explanation  which  Baur  proposed 
for  the  final  healing  of  the  supposed  breach  between  Peter 
and  Paul  is  unsatisfactory.  But  no  other  explanation  has 
been  discovered  to  take  its  place.  The  very  existence  of  the 
Church  would  have  been  impossible  if  there  had  been  a  per- 
manent breach  between  the  leader  in  the  Gentile  mission  and 
the  leader  among  the  original  disciples  of  Jesus. 

The  Book  of  Acts  does  not  mention  the  difficulty  which 


106  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

arose  at  Antioch  with  regard  to  table  companionship  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles.     But  it  does  mention  another  disagreement 
between  Paul  and  Barnabas.     Barnabas  desired  to  take  John 
Mark  along  on  the  second  missionary  journey,  while  Paul  was 
unwilling  to  take  with  him  again  the  one  who  had  turned  back 
on   the   former  journey   and   had   not   gone   to    those   South 
Galatian  churches  which  it  was  now  proposed  to  revisit.     It 
was  maintained  by  the  Tubingen  school  of  criticism  that  the 
lesser  quarrel  has  here  been  inserted  by  the  author  of  Acts 
with  the  express  purpose  of  covering  up  the  more  serious  dis- 
agreement which  was  the  real  reason  for  the  separation  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul.     But  the  insertion  of  a  quarrel  is  rather 
an  unnatural  way  to  cover  up  the  fact  that  there  was  another 
quarrel;  it  would  have  been  better  to  keep  altogether  silent 
about   the  disagreement.      Moreover,   the   good   faith   of   the 
author  is  now  generally  accepted.     There  is  another  possible 
way  of  explaining  the  omission  of  the  incident  of  Gal.  ii.  11-21 
from  the  Book  of  Acts.     It  may  be  surmised  that  the  incident 
was  so  unimportant  in  its  consequences,  Peter  and  Barnabas 
were  so  quickly  convinced  by  Paul,  that  a  historian  who  was 
concerned,  not  with  personal  details  about  the  relations  between 
Paul  and  the  other  leaders,  but  with  the  external  progress 
of  the  gospel,  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  mention  the  incident 
at  all. 

After  the  separation  of  Barnabas  from  Paul  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  missionary  journey,  it  is  not  recorded  that 
the  two  men  were  ever  associated  again  in  missionary  work. 
But  in  1  Cor.  ix.  6  Barnabas  is  spoken  of  with  respect — "Or 
I  only  and  Barnabas,  have  we  not  a  right  to  forbear  working." 
Evidently  Paul  was  interested  in  the  work  of  Barnabas,  and 
was  not  ashamed  to  appeal  to  his  example.  In  Col.  iv.  10, 
moreover,  "Mark,  the  cousin  of  Barnabas"  is  mentioned,  and 
is  commended  to  the  attention  of  the  Colossian  Christians. 
Mark  here  forms  a  link  between  Paul  and  Barnabas  as  he 
does  between  Paul  and  Peter.  Evidently  the  estrangement  at 
Antioch  was  not  permanent  even  in  the  case  of  Mark,  against 
whom  there  was  the  special  objection  that  he  had  withdrawn 
from  the  work  at  Perga.  According  to  2  Tim.  iv.  11,  Mark 
became  exactly  what  he  had  not  been  at  Perga,  "useful"  to 
Paul  "for  ministering."  And  if  the  testimony  of  2  Timothy 
be  rejected,  the  same  cordial  relationship  between  Paul  and 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      107 

Mark  appears  also  in  Col.  iv.  10,  11 ;  Philem.  £4.  The  scanty 
indications  all  point  very  decidedly  away  from  any  permanent 
estrangement  as  resulting  from  the  incidents  at  Antioch. 

During  the  second  and  third  missionary  journeys,  the  agi- 
tation of  the  Judaizers,  as  has  already  been  observed,  seems 
to  have  subsided.  In  Corinth,  indeed,  according  to  1  and  2 
Corinthians,  Paul  appears  in  deadly  conflict  with  certain  men 
who  sought  to  undermine  his  apostolic  authority.  Baur  made 
much  of  this  conflict;  indeed,  he  based  his  reconstruction  of 
apostolic  history  upon  the  Corinthian  Epistles  almost  as  much 
as  upon  Galatians.  The  starting-point  of  his  investigation 
was  found  in  the  party  watchwords  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  i.  12, 
"I  am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  Apollos ;  and  I  of  Cephas ;  and  I  of 
Christ."  The  "Christ-party"  of  the  verse,  identified  with 
the  opponents  attacked  in  2  Cor.  x-xiii,  Baur  believed  to  have 
been  an  extreme  Judaizing  party.  This  extreme  Judaizing 
party,  Baur  maintained,  appealed  with  some  show  of  reason 
to  the  original  apostles  in  Jerusalem.  Thus  the  Corinthian 
Epistles  like  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  were  made  to  estab- 
lish what  was  to  Baur  the  fundamental  fact  of  apostolic  his- 
tory, a  serious  conflict  of  principle  between  Paul  and  the 
original  apostles.1 

Subsequent  investigation,  however,  has  cast  at  least  serious 
doubt  upon  the  Tubingen  exegesis,  even  where  it  has  not  dis- 
credited it  altogether.  The  whole  matter  of  the  Christ-party 
of  1  Cor.  i.  12  is  felt  to  be  exceedingly  obscure,  so  obscure  that 
J.  Weiss,  for  example,  in  his  recent  commentary  on  1  Corin- 
thians, has  felt  constrained  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  regard- 
ing the  words,  "And  I  of  Christ',  as  an  interpolation.2  Where 
this  heroic  measure  has  not  been  resorted  to,  various  interpre- 
tations have  been  proposed.  Sometimes,  for  example,  the 
Christ-party  has  been  thought  to  have  consisted  of  those  who 
rejected  the  other  watchwords,  but  in  such  a  proud  and  quarrel- 
some way  that  the  watchword,  "I  am  of  Christ,"  which  should 
have  belonged  to  all,  became  only  the  shibboleth  of  another 
party.  Sometimes,  again,  the  Christ-party  has  been  regarded 
as  a  gnosticizing  party  which  boasted  of  direct  communica- 

1  Baur,  "Die  Christuspartei  in  der  korirvthischen  Gemeinde,"  in  Tilbinger 
Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1831,  4  Heft,  pp.  61-206. 

2  J.  Weiss,  Der  erste  Korintherbrief,  1910,  in  Meyer,  op.  cit.,  9te  Aufl.,  p. 
xxxviii. 


108  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tions  with  the  risen  Christ.  At  any  rate,  it  is  very  difficult 
to  find  in  the  words  "I  am  of  Christ"  any  clear  designation  of 
Judaizers  who  appealed  against  Paul  to  James  or  to  their 
own  connections  with  Jesus  in  Palestine.  On  the  contrary, 
the  reader  of  the  first  four  chapters  of  1  Corinthians  may 
well  be  doubtful  whether  there  were  any  distinct  parties  at  all. 
It  looks  rather  as  though  what  Paul  was  rebuking  were  merely 
a  spirit  of  division,  which  manifested  itself  now  in  one  watch- 
word and  now  in  another.  The  Corinthian  Christians  seem 
to  have  been  "sermon-tasters" ;  they  were  proud  of  their  "wis- 
dom," and  laid  undue  stress  upon  the  varying  form  of  the 
gospel  message  to  the  neglect  of  the  content.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  in  1  Cor.  i-iv  Paul  does  not  enter  upon  any  anti-Judaistic 
polemic,  but  addressed  himself  to  those  who  in  a  spirit  of 
pride  and  quarrelsomeness  sought  after  wisdom.  "If  you  would 
be  truly  wise  and  truly  'spiritual,'  "  he  says,  "then  cease  your 
contentions."  Paul  was  perhaps  combating  not  any  definite 
parties,  but  only  the  party  spirit. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  were  in  the  Corinthian 
Church  persons  who  emphasized  against  Paul  the  advantages 
of  Palestinian  origin  and  of  direct  connection  with  Jesus. 
But  there  is  no  reason  to  bring  these  opponents  of  Paul  into 
any  close  relation  to  the  original  apostles  and  to  James.  The 
letters  of  recommendation  (2  Cor.  iii.  1)  may  have  come  else- 
where than  from  the  apostles ;  indeed  the  mention  of  letters 
from  the  Corinthians  as  well  as  to  them  would  seem  to  make 
the  passage  refer  to  a  general  habit  of  credential-bearing 
rather  than  to  any  special  credentials  from  Jerusalem.  The 
opponents  desired  to  push  themselves  into  other  men's  spheres 
of  labor ;  and  in  order  to  do  so  they  were  in  the  habit  of  arm- 
ing themselves  with  commendatory  epistles.  The  reference  is 
quite  general  and  to  us  quite  obscure ;  it  is  only  by  exceedingly 
bold  specialization  that  it  can  be  made  to  attest  the  existence 
of  letters  of  commendation  from  the  Jerusalem  leaders.  More- 
over, even  if  the  opponents  did  have  some  sort  of  endorsement 
from  Jerusalem,  they  may  have  abused  the  confidence  which 
had  been  reposed  in  them.  The  Tubingen  exegesis  of  2  Cor. 
xi.  5;  xii.  11,  by  which  "the  chief est  apostles"  were  identified 
with  the  pillars  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  should  be  rejected ;  and 
the  phrase  (which  is  rather  to  be  translated  "those  who  are 
apostles  overmuch")  should  be  taken  as  designating  simply  the 


THE   TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      109 

Corinthian  agitators  themselves.  Thus,  the  "apostles  over- 
much" of  2  Cor.  xi.  5  become  the  same  as  the  "false  apostles" 
of  verse  13,  the  latter  verse  being  used  in  order  to  interpret 
the  former.  In  1  Cor.  i.  12,  Peter  is  mentioned  as  being  ap- 
pealed to  by  one  of  the  "parties"  in  the  Corinthian  Church. 
It  has  sometimes  been  maintained,  on  the  basis  of  this  verse, 
that  Peter  had  actually  been  present  in  Corinth  as  had  Apollos 
and  Paul,  who  appear  in  two  of  the  other  party  watchwords. 
But  the  matter  is  at  least  very  doubtful.  As  chief  of  the 
original  disciples  of  Jesus  Peter  might  well  have  evoked  the 
special  admiration  of  certain  members  of  the  Corinthian  Church 
without  having  ever  been  personally  present.  There  does  not 
seem  to  be  the  slightest  evidence  for  supposing  that  the  admirers 
of  Peter  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  i.  12  were  extreme  Judaizers; 
and  there  is  no  decisive  reason  for  identifying  them  with  the 
opponents  who  appear  in  2  Cor.  x-xiii.  Certainly  there  is  no 
reason  for  making  Peter  responsible  for  the  factiousness  of 
those  who  used  his  name.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Paul 
rebukes  the  "Paul  party" — if  it  be  a  party — as  much  as  any 
of  the  others,  and  distinctly  commends  Apollos,  who  was  ap- 
pealed to  by  the  "Apollos  party."  Evidently  the  faults  of 
the  "parties"  were  not  due  at  all  to  those  whose  names  the 
parties  used.  In  1  Cor.  iii.  21,  22,  Paul  says,  "All  things 
are  yours,  whether  Paul  or  Apollos  or  Cephas."  Here  Peter 
is  put  as  part  of  the  common  possession  of  all  Christians. 
There  could  not  possibly  be  a  clearer  recognition  of  the  com- 
plete fellowship  which  Paul  regards  as  existing  between  him- 
self and  Peter.  Finally,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  11,  Paul  calls  attention 
expressly  to  the  fundamental  unity  between  himself  and  the 
other  apostles:  "Whether  then  it  be  I  or  they,  so  we  preach, 
and  so  ye  believed."  The  Corinthian  Epistles  certainly 
lend  no  support  to  the  Tubingen  contention;  they  certainly 
provide  no  evidence  of  a  breach  between  Paul  and  the  original 
disciples  of  Jesus. 

At  the  time  of  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  Paul  came  again 
into  contact  with  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  with 
the  Jerusalem  Church.  The  arrival  at  Jerusalem  is  narrated 
in  one  of  the  we-sections  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  it  is  there 
said,  "The  brethren  received  us  gladly"  (Acts  xxi.  17).  The 
use  of  the  first  person  plural  disappears  after  the  following 
1See  Knowling,  as  cited  above,  p.  104,  footnotes  1  and  2. 


110  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

verse,  where  the  meeting  of  Paul  with  James  is  described,  but 
it  is  very  difficult  to  separate  Acts  xxi.  20,  for  example,  from 
the  we-section.  Of  course  there  could  be  no  use  of  the  "we" 
when  the  narrator  did  not  participate  in  what  was  being  de- 
scribed. In  Acts  xxi.  20,  it  is  said  that  James  and  the  pres- 
byters "glorified  God"  on  account  of  what  had  been  done 
among  the  Gentiles  through  the  ministry  of  Paul.  Whatever 
view  may  be  taken  of  the  composition  of  Acts,  therefore,  the 
warm  reception  of  Paul  on  the  part  of  the  Jerusalem  leaders 
seems  to  be  attested  by  an  eyewitness.  Such  a  reception 
would  be  very  difficult  to  explain  if  the  relations  between  Paul 
and  Jerusalem  had  been  what  they  are  represented  as  being 
by  the  Tubingen  scholars. 

According  to  Acts  xxi.  20-26,  James  brought  to  Paul's 
attention  the  scruples  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  were 
"zealous  for  the  law."  These  Jewish  Christians  had  been  told 
that  Paul  was  teaching  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  not  to 
circumcise  their  children  or  to  walk  "in  the  customs."  With 
regard  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  James  has  nothing  to  say 
except  to  call  attention  to  the  Apostolic  Decree  which  the 
Jerusalem  Church  itself  had  adopted.  But  in  order  to  allay 
the  suspicions  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  James  suggests  that 
Paul  should  participate  in  a  Jewish  vow.  According  to  Acts 
xxi.  26,  Paul  complied  with  the  request. 

Such  compliance  was  regarded  by  the  Tubingen  scholars 
as  absolutely  incompatible  with  Paul's  character,  and  there- 
fore as  unhistorical.  But  recent  criticism  has  been  becoming, 
to  say  the  least,  less  certain  about  the  matter.  The  incident 
is  narrated  in  a  concrete  way  which  creates  a  most  favorable 
impression;  indeed,  the  passage  seems  even  to  belong  to  the 
supposed  we-section  source.  Moreover,  a  sober  study  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  has  shown  that  the  attitude  of  Paul  toward 
Judaism  and  toward  the  Law  was  by  no  means  what  Baur 
and  Zeller,  through  a  one-sided  interpretation  of  the  polemic 
of  Galatians,  had  supposed.  In  particular,  the  sharing  of 
Paul  in  a  Jewish  vow  is  only  an  exemplification  of  the  prin- 
ciple which  Paul  lays  down  in  1  Cor.  ix.  19-22  of  becoming 
all  things  to  all  men.  Where  could  the  principle  possibly 
have  applied  if  it  did  not  apply  to  the  situation  in  Jerusalem 
at  the  time  of  Paul's  last  visit?  Where,  if  not  there,  could 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM       111 

Paul  have  felt  bound  to  become  to  the  Jews  as  a  Jew  in  order 
that  he  might  gain  Jews  (1  Cor.  ix.  20)?  There  seems  to 
have  been  no  attempt  at  that  time  to  force  the  Law  upon 
Gentiles,  and  no  tendency  to  regard  it  even  for  Jews  as 
necessary  to  salvation.  Compliance  with  Jewish  custom  would 
therefore  not  be  open  to  the  misunderstanding  which  might 
have  made  it  inadvisable  during  the  midst  of  the  Judaistic 
controversy.  The  devotion  of  the  Jewish  Christians  to  the 
Law  seems  never  to  have  been  condemned  by  Paul  on  principle. 
Should  he  then  run  counter  to  Jewish  feeling  by  pursuing  a 
crassly  Gentile  manner  of  life  in  the  very  midst  of  Judaism, 
when  the  national  life,  in  the  troublous  years  before  the  Jew- 
ish war,  was  running  high?  The  answer  to  this  question  is 
at  any  rate  not  so  simple  as  was  formerly  supposed.  Par- 
ticipation by  Paul  in  a  Jewish  vow  in  Jerusalem  is  not  beyond 
the  limits  of  that  devotion  to  the  Jewish  people  which  the 
Epistles  undoubtedly  attest.  And  it  is  not  really  derogatory 
to  the  character  of  Paul.  Where  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
was  concerned,  Paul  was  absolutely  unswerving  and  abso- 
lutely without  regard  for  personal  considerations ;  but  when 
the  "weaker  brethren"  of  his  own  nation  could  be  won  without 
sacrifice  of  principle,  he  was  fully  capable  of  becoming  to  the 
Jews  as  a  Jew. 

While  Paul  was  in  prison  in  Jerusalem  and  in  Caesarea, 
what  was  the  attitude  of  James  and  of  the  Jerusalem  Church? 
The  Book  of  Acts  does  not  say,  and  far-reaching  conclusions 
have  sometimes  been  drawn  from  its  silence.  The  Jerusalem 
leaders,  it  is  said,  were  at  least  lukewarm  in  their  defense  of 
Paul;  they  themselves  were  zealous  for  the  Law,  and  they 
had  only  been  half-convinced  of  the  loyalty  of  Paul;  it  is  no 
wonder,  then,  that  they  were  not  anxious  to  bring  Jewish 
disfavor  upon  themselves  by  championing  the  cause  of  Paul. 

This  representation  can  find  no  support  whatever  in  the 
sources.  Certainly  it  is  not  supported  by  the  silence  of  Acts. 
The  disciples  of  Jesus  were  certainly  not  in  positions  of  political 
influence  at  Jerusalem;  indeed  only  a  few  years  later  even 
James,  despite  his  strict  Jewish  manner  of  life,  fell  victim  to 
the  fury  of  his  enemies.  If  at  such  a  time  and  under  such 
circumstances  the  Jerusalem  disciples  accomplished  nothing 
for  Paul,  the  fact  does  not  attest  any  coldness  in  their  sym- 


112  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

pathy,  or  any  repentance  for  the  joy  with  which,  on  the  un- 
equivocal testimony  of  a  we-section,  they  had  greeted  him  on 
his  arrival. 

The  Book  of  Acts  does  not  mention  the  collection  which 
according  to  1  and  2  Corinthians  and  Romans  Paul  carried 
up  to  Jerusalem  for  the  poor  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  except 
perhaps  in  the  bare  allusion  in  Acts  xxiv.  17.  But  no  great 
significance  is  to  be  attached  to  the  omission.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  Book  of  Acts  is  not  concerned  primarily 
with  the  inner  development  of  the  churches,  but  rather  with 
the  external  progress  of  the  gospel  out  from  Jerusalem  to  the 
Gentile  world.  How  meager,  for  example,  as  compared  with 
the  Corinthian  Epistles,  is  the  account  which  Acts  gives  of 
affairs  at  Corinth!  To  infer,  therefore,  from  the  silence  of 
Acts  about  the  collection  that  the  collection  was  not  graciously 
received  is  to  make  use  of  the  argument  from  silence  in  a  most 
adventurous  and  unwarranted  manner.  The  inference  is  defi- 
nitely opposed,  moreover,  by  the  testimony  of  a  we-section  in 
Acts  xxi.  17,  where  Paul  is  said  to  have  been  warmly  received 
on  his  arrival  in  Jerusalem.  That  verse  refers  perhaps  to 
the  reception  of  Paul  merely  in  a  little  group  at  the  house  of 
Mnason.  But  the  warmth  of  his  reception  there  was  at  least 
of  good  presage  for  the  reception  which  took  place  the  next 
day  in  the  assembly  of  the  elders.  Rom.  xv.  31  is  sometimes 
thought  to  indicate  anxious  solicitude  on  the  part  of  Paul 
lest  the  collection  should  not  be  acceptable  to  the  Jerusalem 
Church.  But  the  words  will  not  bear  the  weight  which  is 
hung  upon  them.  When  Paul  asks  his  readers  to  pray  that 
he  may  be  rescued  from  them  that  are  disobedient  in  Judsea 
(that  is,  the  non-Christian  Jews),  and  that  the  offering 
which  he  is  carrying  to  Jerusalem  may  be  acceptable  to  the 
saints,  he  certainly  does  not  indicate  any  fear  lest  the  offering 
may  not  be  acceptable.  The  offering  had  been  much  on  his 
heart ;  it  was  being  carried  to  Jerusalem  at  the  imminent  risk 
of  life;  these  perils  were  being  encountered  out  of  love 
for  the  Jerusalem  brethren.  Surely  it  is  natural  for  the  bearer 
of  such  an  offering  to  wish  that  it  may  be  acceptable.  That 
wish  is  natural  in  the  case  of  any  gift,  no  matter  how  certain 
the  giver  may  be  that  the  recipient  will  be  grateful.  It  was 
still  more  natural  in  the  case  of  the  Pauline  collection.  More- 
over, even  if  Paul  was  solicitous  about  the  reception  of  the 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GENTILE  FREEDOM      113 

gift,  his  solicitude  may  well  have  concerned  merely  those  mem- 
bers of  the  Jerusalem  Church  mentioned  in  Acts  xxi.  20-22, 
who  were  suspicious  of  Gentile  Christianity.  There  is  no  rea- 
son, therefore,  for  connecting  the  solicitude  of  Paul  with  the 
original  apostles  or  with  James. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  present  purpose  to  attempt 
any  review  of  the  missionary  journeys  of  Paul.  The  outline 
of  Paul's  life  is  here  being  considered  merely  for  its  bearing 
upon  the  relations  which  Paul  sustained  (1)  to  the  original 
disciples  of  Jesus,  (2)  to  Judaism,  and  (3)  to  paganism.  The 
first  of  these  relationships  has  been  chiefly  in  view.  Enough 
has,  however,  perhaps  been  said  to  establish  the  following 
propositions : 

(1)  The  relation  between  Paul  and  the  original  disciples 
of  Jesus  was  cordial ;  there  is  no  reason  to  interpret  the  "right 
hand  of  fellowship"  which  the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
gave  to  Paul  in  any  other  than  its  full  meaning,  and  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  good  relationship  was  broken  off  at  any 
later  time. 

(2)  The  early  training  of  Paul  was  thoroughly  Jewish, 
and  was  fundamentally  Palestinian,  not  Hellenistic ;  and  Paul 
never  relinquished  his  attachment  to  his  own  people. 

(3)  Paul's  attitude  toward  paganism,  after  the  conversion 
as  well  as  before  it,  was  an  attitude  of  abhorrence.     If  common 
ground  was  ever  sought  with  his  pagan  hearers,  it  was  only  as 
a   starting-point   for   the   denunciation    of   idolatry    and   the 
proclamation  of  a  revealed  gospel. 


CHAPTER  IV 
PAUL  AND  JESUS 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  review  of  Paul's  life  has  prepared  the  way  for  the 
principal  subject  of  investigation.  What  was  the  origin  of 
the  religion  of  Paul? 

The  most  obvious  answer  to  that  question  is  that  the  re- 
ligion of  Paul  was  based  upon  Jesus.  That  is  the  answer 
which  has  always  been  given  in  the  Church.  The  Church  has 
always  accepted  the  apostle  Paul,  not  at  all  as  a  religious 
philosopher,  but  simply  and  solely  as  a  witness  to  Jesus.  If 
he  was  not  a  true  disciple  of  Jesus,  then  the  authority  which 
he  has  always  possessed  and  the  influence  which  he  has  wielded 
have  been  based  upon  a  misconception. 

But  exactly  the  same  answer  was  given  by  Paul  himself. 
Paul  regarded  himself  as  a  servant  of  Christ,  and  based  his 
whole  life  upon  what  Christ  had  done  and  what  Christ  was 
continuing  to  do.  "It  is  no  longer  I  that  live,"  he  says,  "but 
Christ  liveth  in  me."  Unquestionably  this  Christ,  upon  whom 
Paul  based  his  life,  was  identified  by  Paul  with  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth, a  person  who  had  lived  in  Palestine  a  few  years  before. 
A  mighty  change  in  the  mode  of  existence  of  Jesus  had  indeed, 
Paul  believed,  been  wrought  by  the  resurrection;  a  life  of  hu- 
miliation had  given  place  to  a  life  of  glory.  But  it  was  the 
same  person  who  lived  throughout.  There  is  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles  not  a  trace  of  any  distinction  between  "Jesus"  and 
"Christ,"  as  though  the  former  were  the  name  of  the  historic 
personage  who  lived  in  Galilee  and  the  latter  the  name  of  the 
risen  Lord.  On  the  contrary,  the  name  Jesus  is  applied  freely 
to  the  risen  Lord,  and  the  name  Lord — the  loftiest  of  all 
titles — is  applied  to  the  Jesus  who  suffered  and  died.  It  was 
"the  Lord  of  glory,"  according  to  Paul,  who  was  crucified 

1  In  the  present  chapter  there  are  some  coincidences  of  thought  and 
expression  with  the  paper  by  the  same  author  entitled  "Jesus  and  Paul" 
in  Biblical  and  Theological  Studies  by  the  Members  of  the  Faculty  of 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  1912,  pp.  547-578. 

117 


118          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

(1  Cor.  ii.  8).  The  same  phenomenon  appears  everywhere  in 
the  Epistles :  the  Lord  of  glory  lived  the  life  of  a  servant  on 
earth;  and  Jesus,  the  man  who  had  recently  lived  in  Palestine, 
was  to  be  worshiped  by  all  in  heaven  and  on  earth  (Phil.  ii. 
10,11). 

There  is,  therefore,  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  not  the  slightest 
trace  of  any  gnosticizing  separation  between  Jesus  the  historic 
person,  and  Christ  the  divine  Lord.  There  is,  moreover,  as 
W.  Morgan  rightly  observes,1  not  the  slightest  trace  of  any 
"adoptionist  Christology,"  by  which  a  man  Jesus  could  be 
conceived  of  either  as  growing  up  gradually  into  divinity  or  as 
received  into  divinity  by  a  catastrophic  event  like  the  resurrec- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  Paul  says  expressly  that  the  Jesus  who 
lived  in  Palestine  existed,  before  His  appearance  upon  earth, 
in  the  form  of  God ;  and  the  entrance  of  that  person  upon  hu- 
man life  is  represented  as  a  voluntary  act  of  love.  His  higher 
nature,  therefore,  existed  from  the  beginning;  indeed  He  was, 
according  to  Paul,  the  instrument  in  the  creation  of  the 
world. 

Finally,  there  is  no  trace  in  Paul  of  any  doctrine  of  "ke- 
nosis,"  by  which  the  higher  nature  of  Christ  might  have  been 
regarded  as  so  relinquished  while  He  was  on  earth  that  the 
words  and  deeds  of  the  historic  person  would  become  matter  of 
indifference.  Such  a  representation  is  refuted  not  only  by 
what  has  just  been  said  about  the  application  of  the  term 
"Lord"  to  the  historic  Jesus,  but  also  by  the  references  of 
Paul  to  actual  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus.  These  references 
are  few;  their  scantiness  may  require  explanation.  But  they 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  Paul  regarded  the  words  of  the 
historic  Jesus  as  possessing  absolute  authority  and  His  ex- 
ample as  normative  for  the  Christian  life. 

Thus  the  testimony  of  Paul  is  plain.  He  regarded  Christ 
as  Lord  and  Master,  and  he  identified  that  Christ  fully  with 
the  Jesus  who  had  lived  but  a  few  years  before.  This  testi- 
mony must  be  faced  and  invalidated  by  those  who  would  find 
the  origin  of  Paul's  religion  elsewhere  than  in  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  Paul.  But  what  was  the  testi- 
mony of  his  contemporaries?  In  the  environment  of  Paul 
were  to  be  found  some  men  who  had  been  intimate  friends  of 
*W.  Morgan,  The  Religion  and  Theology  of  Paul,  1917. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  119 

Jesus ;  presumably  they  were  acquainted  with  Jesus'  character 
and  teaching.  What  was  their  attitude  toward  Paul?  Did 
they  regard  him  as  an  innovator  with  respect  to  Jesus,  or  did 
they  admit  him  to  the  company  of  Jesus'  true  disciples?  Since 
they  knew  both  Jesus  and  Paul,  their  testimony  as  to  the 
relationship  between  the  two  is  obviously  worth  having.  At  this 
point  appears  the  importance  of  Baur's  work.  It  is  the  merit  of 
Baur  that  however  faulty  his  solution  he  placed  at  least  in  the 
forefront  of  interest  the  problem  of  the  relationship  between 
Paul  and  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus.  That  relationship, 
Baur  believed,  was  fundamentally  a  relationship  of  conflict; 
Paul  and  Peter,  according  to  Baur,  established  at  best  only 
a  modus  vivendi,  an  agreement  to  disagree;  really  they  were 
separated  by  a  deep-seated  difference  of  principle.  But  at 
this  point  a  further  problem  arises.  If  Paul  and  Peter  were 
really  in  disharmony,  how  did  they  ever  come  to  be  regarded 
as  in  harmony?  If  there  was  a  deep-seated  difference  of  prin- 
ciple between  Paul  and  Peter,  how  did  it  come  about  that  the 
Catholic  Church  was  founded  not  upon  Paul  taken  alone,  or 
upon  Peter  taken  alone,  but  upon  Paul  and  Peter  taken  to- 
gether ? 

Here,  again,  Baur  displayed  his  true  intellectual  greatness 
by  detecting  and  facing  the  problem.  He  saw  clearly  what 
has  seldom  been  seen  with  equal  clearness  since  his  day,  that 
the  historian  must  explain  the  transition  not  only  from  the 
historical  Jesus  to  apostolic  Christianity,  but  from  apostolic 
Christianity  to  the  Old  Catholic  Church.  And  for  this  latter 
problem  he  proposed  a  solution  which  was  not  wanting  in 
grandeur.  But  his  solution,  despite  its  grandeur,  has  suc- 
cumbed. Baur's  reconstruction  of  the  second  century,  with 
the  supposed  gradual  compromise  between  Pauline  and  Petrine 
Christianity,  resulting  finally  in  the  Christianity  of  the  Old 
Catholic  Church,  was  one  of  the  first  elements  in  his  system 
which  had  to  be  abandoned;  it  was  destroyed,  in  the  first 
place,  by  the  criticism  of  A.  Ritschl,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
by  the  painstaking  labors  of  Lightfoot,  Zahn,  Von  Harnack 
and  others,  by  which,  through  a  study  of  second-century 
documents  and  their  literary  relationships,  it  was  shown  that 
the  New  Testament  books  cannot  be  scattered  at  will  any- 
where throughout  the  second  century  in  the  interests  of  a 
theory  of  development.  Ritschl  showed  that  the  importance 


120  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  specifically  Jewish  Christianity  had  been  enormously  ex- 
aggerated by  Baur ;  and  the  study  of  patristics  tended  to  place 
the  New  Testament  books  much  earlier  than  the  late  dating 
which  the  theory  of  Baur  required. 

Thus  Baur  did  not  succeed  in  overcoming  the  fundamental 
objection  raised  against  him  by  the  very  existence  of  a  Church 
that  appealed  both  to  Peter  and  to  Paul.  If  Peter  and  Paul 
were  really  in  fundamental  disharmony,  how  did  the  Church 
come  to  bring  them  together  so  confidently  and  at  such  an 
early  time?  This  question  has  never  been  answered.  The 
very  existence  of  the  Church  is  a  refutation  of  Baur;  the 
Church  never  could  have  existed  unless  the  apostles  had  been 
in  fundamental  agreement. 

But  Baur  may  also  be  refuted  directly,  in  a  purely  exe- 
getical  way,  by  an  examination  of  the  sources  to  which  he 
himself  appealed.  Baur  established  his  hypothesis  of  a  con- 
flict between  Paul  and  Peter  on  the  basis  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  Subsidiary  evidence,  thought  to  be  found  in  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  was  soon  shown  to  be  illusory. 
Thus  Baur  and  the  early  Tubingen  scholars  detected  an  anti- 
Pauline  polemic  in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  which  they  attrib- 
uted to  John  the  son  of  Zebedee.  This  use  of  the  Apocalpse 
was  soon  abandoned  even  by  Baur's  own  disciples.  The  theory 
of  Baur,  therefore,  stands  or  falls  with  his  interpretation  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  especially  1  and  2  Corinthians  and  Gala- 
tians. 

The  Corinthian  Epistles,  as  has  been  observed  in  the  last 
chapter,  afford  no  real  support  to  the  hypothesis  of  an  inter- 
apostolic  conflict.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  con- 
nect the  troublemakers  at  Corinth  with  the  original  apostles 
or  with  James;  and  the  whole  subject  of  the  "Christ-party" 
in  1  Cor.  i.  12  is  now  felt  to  be  very  obscure.  The  evidence 
of  an  apostolic  conflict  narrows  down,  therefore,  to  the  second 
chapter  of  Galatians. 

Undoubtedly  there  are  expressions  in  that  chapter  which 
if  taken  alone  might  indicate  ill-will  between  Paul  and  the 
Jerusalem  leaders.  In  Gal.  ii.  2,  6,  for  example,  James  and 
Peter  and  John  are  called  "those  who  seemed,"  1  and  in  the 
latter  verse  the  phrase  is  explained  by  the  fuller  designation, 
"those  who  seemed  to  be  something."  In  Gal.  ii.  9,  the  same 


PAUL  AND  JESUS 

persons  are  designated  as  "those  who  seemed  to  be  pillars." 
In  themselves  these  words  are  capable  of  an  interpretation 
which  would  bo  derogatory  to  the  persons  so  designated.  The 
meaning  might  conceivably  be  that  the  Jerusalem  leaders  only 
"seemed"  or  "were  thought"  to  be  something,  or  only  thought 
themselves  to  be  something  (compare  Gal.  vi.  3),  whereas  they 
really  were  nothing.  But  this  interpretation  is,  of  course, 
quite  impossible,  since  Paul  certainly  recognized  Peter  and 
John  as  genuine  apostles  and  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord 
as  a  man  of  real  authority  in  the  Church.  The  most  that  may 
be  maintained,  therefore,  is  that  the  choice  of  the  peculiar 
phrases  indicates  a  certain  irritation  of  Paul  against  the 
Jerusalem  leaders ;  instead  of  calling  them  pillars  (which  cer- 
tainly he  recognized  them  as  being)  he  shows  his  irritation, 
it  is  said,  by  calling  them  "those  who  were  thought  to  be 
pillars." 

The  presence  of  indignant  feeling  in  the  passage  must 
clearly  be  admitted;  but  the  question  is  whether  the  indigna- 
tion is  directed  against  the  Jerusalem  leaders  themselves  or 
only  against  the  Judaizers  who  falsely  appealed  to  them.  The 
latter  view  is  correct.  It  must  be  remembered  that  what  Paul 
in  Gal.  ii.  1-10  desires  most  of  all  to  prevent  is  the  impression 
that  he  is  appealing  to  the  Jerusalem  apostles  as  to  a  higher 
instance.  He  is  not  basing  the  authority  of  his  preaching 
upon  any  authorization  that  the  apostles  gave  him;  he  is  not 
saying  that  he  has  a  right  to  be  heard  because  those  who  were 
the  pillars  of  the  Church  endorsed  his  message.  Such  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  conference  would  have  cast  despite  upon  all 
the  work  which  he  had  done  before,  and  would  have  made  it 
necessary  for  him  in  the  future  to  prove  constantly  against 
all  Judaizers  and  other  opponents  his  agreement  with  the 
Jerusalem  authorities.  The  profound  consciousness  which  he 
had  of  his  apostolic  authority  did  not  permit  any  such  course 
of  action;  and  such  restrictions  would  have  hindered  his  work 
wherever  he  went.  It  was  absolutely  essential  in  the  economy 
of  God  that  the  leader  of  the  Gentile  work  should  have  inde- 
pendent authority  and  should  not  be  obliged  to  appeal  again 
and  again  to  authorities  who  were  far  away,  at  Jerusalem. 
Hence  what  Paul  desires  to  make  clear  above  all  in  Gal.  ii. 
1-10  is  that  though  he  appealed  to  the  Jerusalem  authorities 
it  was  not  necessary  for  his  own  sake  for  him  to  appeal  to 


122  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

them.  They  were  great,  but  their  greatness  had  absolutely 
nothing  to  do  with  his  authority;  for  they  added  nothing  to 
him.  It  was  therefore  not  the  real  greatness  of  the  original 
apostles  which  caused  him  to  appeal  to  them  (for  he  needed 
no  authorization  from  any  man  no  matter  how  great),  but 
only  the  greatness  which  was  attributed  to  them  by  the  Juda- 
izers.  They  really  were  great,  but  it  was  only  the  false  use 
which  had  been  made  of  their  greatness  by  the  Judaizers  which 
caused  him  to  lay  his  gospel  before  them.  The  Judaizers  were 
to  be  refuted  from  the  lips  of  the  very  authorities  to  whom 
they  appealed. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  terms  which  are  now  under 
discussion  are  incapable  of  real  translation  into  English.  The 
equivalent  English  words  might  seem  to  imply  that  the  reputed 
greatness  of  the  Jerusalem  leaders  was  not  also  a  real  great- 
ness. There  is  no  such  implication  in  the  Greek.  The  shortest 
of  the  phrases,  which  may  be  paraphrased  "those  of  repute," 
was  used  in  Greek  sometimes  in  a  way  thoroughly  honorable 
to  the  persons  designated.  Possibly  the  repetition  of  the 
phrases,  which  seems  somewhat  strange,  was  due  to  the  em- 
ployment of  the  same  phrases  by  the  Judaizing  opponents. 
The  peculiarities  of  the  passage  may  perhaps  be  due  partly 
to  the  fact  that  Paul  is  here  using  catchwords  of  his  adver- 
saries. 

At  any  rate,  if  the  reader  refuses  to  interpret  these  ex- 
pressions in  a  way  derogatory  to  the  original  apostles,  such 
refusal  is  not  due  merely  to  a  pious  desire  to  preserve  harmony 
in  the  apostolic  college;  it  is  due  rather  to  the  way  in  which 
Paul  himself  everywhere  speaks  of  the  apostles,  and  to  the 
"right  hand  of  fellowship"  which  according  to  this  very  pas- 
sage they  extended  to  him.  It  is  good  exegetical  method  to 
interpret  things  that  are  obscure  by  things  that  are  plain; 
but  what  is  plainest  of  all  in  this  passage  is  that  the  very 
authorities  to  whom  the  Judaizers  appealed  against  Paul  rec- 
ognized the  hand  of  God  in  his  work  and  bade  him  Godspeed. 

If  Gal.  ii.  1-10  affords  no  support  to  the  theory  of  Baur, 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  chapter  (Gal.  ii.  11-21)  is  not  really 
any  more  favorable.  This  passage  does  indeed  attest  a  rebuke 
which  Paul  administered  to  Peter  at  Antioch.  Peter  is  even 
accused  of  "hypocrisy."  The  Greek  word l  is  indeed  not 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  123 

quite  so  harsh  as  the  English  word  derived  from  it;  it  means 
the  "playing  of  a  part"  and  so  here  the  concealment  of  true 
convictions.  Nevertheless,  the  incident  remains  regrettable 
enough;  evidently  real  moral  blame  was  attached  by  Paul  to 
Peter's  conduct.  But  what  is  really  significant  is  that  in  the 
very  act  of  condemning  Peter's  practice  Paul  commends  his 
principles;  he  appeals  to  a  great  fund  of  Christian  conviction 
which  he  and  Peter  had  in  common  (Gal.  ii.  14-21).  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  in  this  passage  Paul  is  giving  no  report  of 
what  he  said  to  Peter,  but  is  expounding  his  own  views  to  the 
Galatians.  For  in  Gal.  ii.  14  he  begins  to  tell  what  he  said 
to  Peter  "before  them  all";  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  indi- 
cation of  a  break  before  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Certainly  the 
break  cannot  come  after  verse  14;  for  the  thought  of  that 
verse  is  quite  incomplete  in  itself  and  becomes  intelligible  only 
when  explained  by  what  follows.  The  passage  is  best  ex- 
plained, therefore,  if  it  be  taken  as  embodying  the  substance 
of  what  Paul  said  to  Peter  at  Antioch,  though  doubtless  there 
is  no  attempt  at  verbal  reproduction  of  the  language.  At 
any  rate,  however  much  of  Gal.  ii.  14-21  be  a  report  of  what 
was  said  at  Antioch,  and  however  much  be  what  Paul  now 
wishes  to  say  to  the  Galatians,  one  thing  is  clear — when  Paul 
begins  in  verse  14  to  report  what  he  said  to  Peter,  he  means 
to  call  attention  to  something  in  which  he  and  Peter  were 
agreed;  he  means  to  say:  "You  and  I,  though  we  had  all  the 
advantages  of  the  Law,  relinquished  such  advantages,  in  order 
to  be  justified  by  faith  in  Christ.  How  then  can  we  force  the 
Gentiles  to  seek  salvation  by  a  way  which  even  in  our  own 
case  was  futile?"  Whatever  else  Paul  said  to  Peter,  this  much 
he  certainly  said.  The  context  makes  the  matter  perfectly 
clear.  It  must  always  be  remembered  that  Paul  blames  Peter 
not  for  false  opinions,  but  for  "hypocrisy" — that  is,  for  con- 
cealment of  true  opinions.  In  verse  14,  moreover,  he  says 
expressly  that  Peter  was  living  after  a  Gentile  manner.  The 
verb  is  in  the  present  tense — "if  thou  being  a  Jew  livest  as  do 
the  Gentiles  and  not  as  do  the  Jews."  Paul  means  to  say  that 
a  principle  essentially  similar  to  that  of  the  Gentile  Christians, 
according  to  which  in  their  case  the  keeping  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
was  relinquished,  was  the  fixed  basis  of  Peter's  life.  Peter's 
present  withdrawal  from  the  Gentiles  was  a  mere  temporary 
aberration.  Before  the  coming  of  the  men  from  James,  he  had 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

seen  clearly  that  the  great  new  principle  of  faith  in  Christ  took 
precedence  of  the  Law,  even  for  Jewish  Christians;  and  after 
the  departure  of  the  men  he  would  presumably  revert  to  his  old 
freedom.  Indeed  even  now,  even  while  he  was  withdrawing 
himself  from  his  Gentile  brethren,  the  real  principle  of  his 
life  had  not  been  changed;  he  was  still  "living  as  do  the  Gen- 
tiles." But  he  was  concealing  his  real  life  for  fear  of  men. 
The  very  nature  of  the  charge  which  Paul  brought  against 
Peter,  therefore,  attests  a  fundamental  unity  of  principle 
between  the  two  apostles.  Paul  condemned  Peter  for  "hypoc- 
risy"; not  for  false  principles,  but  for  concealment  of  true 
principles.  In  principle,  therefore,  Paul  and  Peter  were  agreed. 
Accordingly,  even  the  very  passage  which  at  first  sight 
lends  most  color  to  the  hypothesis  of  Baur,  really,  when  it  is 
correctly  interpreted,  provides  the  most  striking  refutation  of 
that  hypothesis.  The  very  chapter  which  attests  the  appeal 
of  Paul's  bitter  opponents  to  the  original  apostles,  and  records 
a  sharp  rebuke  which  Paul  administered  to  Peter,  really  fur- 
nishes the  best  evidence  of  apostolic  unity.  It  is  the  second 
chapter  of  Galatians  which  mentions  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship extended  to  Paul  by  James  and  Peter  and  John,  and  it 
is  the  second  chapter  of  Galatians  which  represents  the  di- 
vergence between  Paul  and  Peter  as  divergence  of  practice, 
not  of  principle.  Even  if  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  stood 
alone,  it  would  establish  the  fundamental  unity  of  the  apostles. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  does  not 
stand  alone;  it  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  other 
sources.  The  one-sided  interpretation  of  Galatians,  with  neg- 
lect of  other  epistles  of  Paul  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  has 
been  one  of  the  most  fruitful  causes  of  error  in  the  study  of 
the  apostolic  age.  For  example,  Gal.  ii  should  never  be  read 
except  in  the  light  of  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11.  The  two  passages  em- 
phasize two  different  aspects  of  Paul's  relation  to  those  who 
had  been  apostles  before  him;  and  only  when  both  the  two 
aspects  are  considered  is  the  full  truth  attained.  Gal.  ii  em- 
phasizes the  independence  of  Paul's  gospel;  Paul  had  not  re- 
ceived it  through  the  instrumentality  of  men.  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11 
emphasizes  the  harmony  of  Paul's  gospel  with  that  of  the 
original  apostles,  whom  Christ  had  commissioned  as  directly 
and  as  truly  as  He  had  commissioned  Paul.  Both  passages 
are  contained  in  sources  admitted  by  all  to  be  sources  of  pri- 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  125 

mary  importance;  yet  either  passage  might  be  misunderstood 
if  it  were  taken  alone. 

Thus  the  danger  of  interpreting  Gal.  ii  entirely  without 
reference  to  anything  else  is  signally  manifested  by  a  com- 
parison with  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11.  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians must  be  allowed  to  cast  light  upon  Galatians.  But 
if  so,  may  not  the  same  privilege  be  granted  to  the  Book  of 
Acts?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  privilege  is  being  granted  to 
the  Book  of  Acts  by  a  larger  and  larger  number  of  modern 
scholars.  Baur  demanded  that  the  Pauline  Epistles  should 
be  interpreted  by  themselves,  entirely  without  reference  to 
Acts.  But  as  J.  Weiss  l  pertinently  remarks,  such  interpre- 
tation is  quite  impossible;  the  Epistles  taken  by  themselves 
are  unintelligible;  they  can  be  interpreted  only  when  placed 
in  the  biographical  outline  provided  by  the  historian.  Of 
course,  that  outline  might  be  discredited  by  a  comparison 
with  the  Epistles;  the  divergences  might  really  be  contradic- 
tions. Comparison  of  Acts  with  the  Epistles  is  therefore  a 
matter  of  fundamental  importance.  But  that  comparison,  as  it 
has  been  undertaken  at  some  length  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters  of  the  present  discussion,  has  resulted  favorably  to 
the  Book  of  Acts.  The  divergences  between  Acts  and  Pauline 
Epistles  are  no  more  to  be  regarded  as  contradictions  than 
are  the  divergences  between  various  passages  in  the  Epistles 
themselves ;  and  at  many  points  the  historical  work  casts  a 
flood  of  light  upon  the  words  of  Paul. 

Thus  the  imposing  construction  of  Baur  was  erected  by 
neglecting  all  sources  except  Galatians  and  Corinthians,  and 
then  by  misinterpreting  these.  When  all  the  available  sources 
are  used,  and  estimated  at  their  true  value,  the  hypothesis  of 
a  fundamental  conflict  between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles 
disappears.  There  was  indeed  a  bitter  conflict  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  but,  as  Ritschl  observed  against  Baur,  it  was  a  con- 
flict not  between  Paul  and  the  original  apostles,  but  between 
all  the  apostles,  including  both  Paul  and  Peter,  on  the  one 
side,  and  an  extreme  Judaizing  party  on  the  other.  The  ex- 
treme Judaizing  party,  not  having  the  support  of  the  original 
disciples  of  Jesus,  soon  ceased  to  be  influential.  The  various 
sects  of  schismatic  Jewish  Christians  which  appear  in  the 
second  century — "Ebionites"  and  the  like — if  they  had  any 
1  See  p.  40,  footnote  1. 


126  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

roots  at  all  the  apostolic  age  (which  is  more  than  doubtful), 
could  trace  their  spiritual  descent  not  from  the  original  apos- 
tles, but  from  the  Judaizers.  It  is  no  wonder  then  that  they 
were  left  behind  in  the  march  of  the  Church.  They  were  left 
behind  not  because  Peter  was  left  behind — for  Peter  appears 
as  at  least  one  of  the  foundations  upon  which  the  Old  Cath- 
olic Church  was  built — but  because  Peter  had  left  them  be- 
hind, or  rather  because  Peter  had  never  given  them  his  sup- 
port at  all.  They  were  left  behind  because  from  the  beginning 
their  spiritual  ancestors  in  the  apostolic  age  had  not  really 
belonged  with  apostolic  Christianity,  but  had  been  "false 
brethren  privily  brought  in." 

One  fact,  indeed,  still  requires  explanation.  If  Paul  and 
the  original  apostles  were  in  such  perfect  agreement,  how  is 
it  that  the  Judaizers  in  the  apostolic  age  could  appeal  to  the 
original  apostles  against  Paul?  The  existence  of  that  appeal 
cannot  altogether  be  denied.  The  exact  nature  of  the  appeal 
is  not  indeed  altogether  clear.  It  is  by  no  means  clear  that 
the  Judaizers  appealed  to  the  original  apostles  in  support 
of  the  content  of  the  Judaizing  message;  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  they  made  Peter  or  James  teach  the  necessity  of  the 
Mosaic  Law  for  salvation.  What  is  clear  is  only  that  they 
appealed  to  the  original  apostles  in  their  personal  attack 
against  Paul ;  they  contrasted  Paul,  who  had  become  a  disciple 
only  after  the  crucifixion,  with  those  who  had  been  intimate 
with  Jesus.  They  used  Peter  to  discredit  the  apostolic  author- 
ity of  Paul,  but  it  is  not  so  clear  that  they  used  Peter  to 
discredit  the  content  of  Paul's  message. 

If,  however,  they  did  appeal  to  Peter  in  this  latter  way, 
if  they  did  appeal  to  Peter  in  support  of  their  legalistic  con- 
tentions, such  an  appeal  does  not  overthrow  the  conclusions 
which  have  just  been  reached  about  the  harmony  of  Peter 
and  Paul;  it  does  not  really  make  Peter  an  advocate  of  legal- 
ism.  For  even  if  Peter  was  not  an  advocate  of  legalism  the 
appeal  of  the  Judaizers  to  him  can  be  explained.  It  can  be 
explained  not  by  the  principles  of  Peter,  but  by  his  practice. 
The  early  disciples  in  Jerusalem  continued  to  observe  the  Jew- 
ish fasts  and  feasts;  they  continued  in  diligent  attendance 
upon  the  Temple  services.  Outwardly,  they  were  simply  devout 
Jews ;  and  the  manner  .of  their  life  might  therefore  have  given 
some  color  to  the  Judaizing  contentions. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  127 

Inwardly,  it  is  true,  the  early  disciples  were  not  simply 
devout  Jews ;  they  were  really  trusting  for  their  salvation  no 
longer  to  their  observance  of  the  Law  but  to  Jesus  their  Sav- 
iour. The  whole  spirit  of  their  lives,  moreover,  was  quite 
different  from  that  which  prevailed  in  legalistic  Judaism; 
anxious  thought  for  the  morrow,  gloomy  contemplation  of  the 
triumphs  of  the  oppressor,  had  given  place  to  exultant  joy. 
The  early  disciples,  indeed,  like  the  Jews,  were  still  waiting 
for  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  their  wait- 
ing was  no  longer  full  of  sorrow.  The  Messiah  was  taken  from 
them  for  a  time ;  but  He  had  already  appeared  and  had  brought 
salvation. 

Thus  the  early  Jerusalem  Church  was  really  quite  distinct 
from  contemporary  Judaism;  the  real  principle  of  its  life 
was  fresh  and  new.  But  to  a  superficial  observer,  on  account 
of  the  continuance  of  old  customs,  the  new  principle  might  not 
appear;  to  a  superficial  observer,  the  observance  of  Jewish 
customs  on  the  part  of  the  early  disciples  might  seem  to  be 
legalism.  And  certainly  the  Judaizers  were  superficial.  Ap- 
parently they  had  come  into  the  Church  in  the  period  of  quiet 
that  followed  the  persecution  of  Stephen;  they  had  come  in 
from  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  and  they  continued  to  be 
Pharisees  at  heart.  As  Pharisees  they  welcomed  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  but  they  did  not  understand  the  teaching  of 
this  Messiah.  They  looked  for  a  continuance  of  the  prerog- 
atives of  Israel.  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but  was  He  not  the 
Jewish  Messiah,  would  He  not  bring  about  the  triumph  of  the 
chosen  people?  Would  not  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth  come 
to  do  obeisance  to  Israel  by  submitting  to  Israel's  Law?  To 
such  observers,  the  Jewish  practice  of  the  original  apostles 
would  furnish  welcome  support;  these  observers  would  not 
care  to  look  beneath  the  surface ;  they  would  say  simply  to 
the  Gentile  Christians  of  Galatia:  "The  original  disciples  of 
Jesus  obey  the  Mosaic  Law;  must  not  you  do  likewise?" 

At  a  later  time  such  an  appeal  could  not  have  been  made; 
at  a  later  time  even  the  practice  of  the  original  apostles 
ceased  to  conform  to  Jewish  custom.  The  tradition  according 
to  which  the  apostle  Peter  finally  went  to  Rome  is  emerging 
triumphant  *  from  the  fires  of  criticism ;  and  if  Peter  went  to 
Rome,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  separated  himself  from  Gen- 
1  See,  for  example,  Lietzmann,  Petrus  and  Paulus  in  Rom,  1915. 


128  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tile  Christians.  Even  in  the  early  days,  in  Antioch,  he  had 
begun  to  abandon  his  Jewish  manner  of  life;  surely  he  must 
have  abandoned  it  more  fully  when  he  went  to  the  capital 
of  the  Gentile  world.  The  tradition  as  to  the  Ephesian  resi- 
dence of  the  apostle  John  also  points  to  the  abandonment  of 
the  Law  on  the  part  of  the  original  apostles,  and  to  their 
definite  entrance  upon  the  Gentile  mission.  That  tradition 
has  been  rejected  only  by  attending  to  late  and  dubious  evi- 
dence to  the  neglect  of  what  is  plain.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  appeal  to  details.  All  that  has  been  said  above  about  the 
position  of  Peter  in  the  mind  of  the  Church  shows  that  even 
the  practice  of  the  original  apostles  finally  adapted  itself  to 
the  needs  of  the  expanding  Gentile  work. 

But  in  the  early  period,  in  Jerusalem,  before  it  had  be- 
come evident  that  the  Jewish  people  as  such  was  to  reject  the 
gospel  message,  the  apostles  continued  to  observe  the  Law. 
And  by  doing  so,  they  gave  the  Judaizers  some  color  of  sup- 
port. Thus  if  the  Judaizers  did  appeal  to  the  original  apostles 
in  support  of  their  legalistic  claims,  the  appeal  does  not  estab- 
lish any  real  unity  of  principle  between  them  and  the  original 
apostles,  or  any  divergence  of  principle  between  the  original 
apostles  and  Paul.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  by  no  means 
perfectly  clear  that  the  appeal  was  made ;  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  the  Judaizers  appealed  to  the  original  apostles 
for  the  content  of  their  legalistic  message  rather  than  merely 
for  their  attack  upon  the  independent  apostleship  of  Paul. 
It  is  possible  that  they  said  no  more  than  this :  "Paul  was 
not  one  of  the  original  disciples  of  Jesus ;  his  authority  is 
merely  a  derived  authority;  he  is,  therefore,  no  more  worthy 
to  be  heard  than  we;  and  we  can  tell  you  something  new — the 
followers  of  the  Messiah  must  unite  themselves  with  the  chosen 
people  and  obey  the  Law  of  God." 

At  any  rate,  even  if  the  Judaizers  did  appeal  to  the 
original  apostles  for  the  content  of  their  message,  the  appeal 
was  a  false  appeal;  the  original  apostles  repudiated  the  Juda- 
izers, and  recognized  Paul  as  a  true  apostle,  with  author- 
ization as  direct  as  their  own. 

Thus  Baur  was  wrong.  But  suppose  Baur  were  right 
about  the  point  which  has  just  been  discussed;  suppose  even 
the  most  impossible  admissions  be  made ;  suppose  it  be  granted 
that  the  original  apostles  differed  fundamentally  from  Paul. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  129 

Even  then  the  testimony  of  the  original  apostles  to  the  true 
connection  between  Paul  and  Jesus  is  not  invalidated.  For 
even  if  the  original  apostles  differed  fundamentally  from 
Paul,  the  difference  concerned  only  the  place  of  the  Mosaic 
Law  in  the  Christian  economy,  and  did  not  concern  the 
Pauline  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ.  So  much  at 
least  must  be  insisted  upon  against  Baur.  The  really  astound- 
ing fact,  which  emerges  from  all  discussion  of  the  apostolic 
age,  is  that  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
whatever  may  be  said  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  Gentile 
freedom,  was  never  criticized  by  the  original  apostles.  In- 
deed, so  far  as  can  be  seen,  it  was  never  criticized  even  by  the 
Judaizers  themselves.  Apparently  it  never  occurred  to  Paul 
that  his  conception  of  the  heavenly  Christ  required  defense. 
About  other  things  there  was  controversy ;  the  doctrine  of 
Christian  freedom,  for  example,  had  to  be  defended  against 
all  sorts  of  objections  and  by  the  use  of  all  sorts  of  evidence. 
But  about  the  person  of  Christ  there  was  not  one  word  of 
debate.  "Not  by  man  but  by  Jesus  Christ,"  Paul  says  at 
the  beginning  of  Galatians.  Evidently  the  Judaizers  said, 
"Not  by  Jesus  Christ  but  by  man."  But  apparently  it 
never  occurred  to  Paul  that  any  one  might  say,  "By  Jesus 
Christ  and  therefore  by  man."  The  Judaizers,  apparently,  as 
well  as  Paul,  recognized  the  alternative  between  Jesus  Christ 
and  man ;  like  Paul  they  separated  Jesus  Christ  from  ordi- 
nary humanity  and  placed  Him  on  the  side  of  God.  The  same 
phenomenon  appears  everywhere  in  the  Pauline  Epistles — the 
tremendous  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  never  defended, 
but  always  assumed.  Indeed,  in  the  earlier  epistles  the  doc- 
trine is  never  even  set  forth  in  any  systematic  way;  it  is 
simply  presupposed.  In  Colossians,  indeed,  it  is  more  definitely 
set  forth,  and  apparently  in  opposition  to  errorists  who  failed 
to  recognize  its  full  implications.  Even  in  Colossae,  however, 
the  doctrine  does  not  seem  to  have  been  denied;  the  errorists 
apparently  did  not  deny  the  supreme  place  of  Jesus  in  the 
scale  of  being,  but  merely  erred  in  attaching  undue  importance 
to  other  beings.  '  What  is  really  significant  in  Colossians 
is  the  character  of  the  errorists.  Evidently  they  were  not  con- 
servative disciples,  who  appealed  against  the  heavenly  Christ 
of  Paul  to  the  facts  about  the  historic  Jesus.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  gnostics,  engaged  in  unhistorical  specula- 


130  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tions,  and  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  anything  that 
primitive  Palestinian  Christianity  might  conceivably  have 
been.  So  when  Paul  first  has  to  defend  his  doctrine  of  the 
exclusive  and  supreme  importance  of  Christ,  he  defends  it 
not  against  conservative  disciples,  who  could  appeal  either 
with  or  without  reason  to  the  original  apostles,  but  against 
gnostic  speculation.  With  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ  Paul 
appears  everywhere  in  perfect  harmony  with  all  Palestinian 
Christians. 

The  fact  is  of  such  importance  that  it  must  be  examined 
in  the  light  of  all  possible  objections.  Is  there  any  trace  in 
the  Pauline  Epistles  of  a  primitive  view  of  Jesus  different 
from  the  lofty  Christology  of  Paul? 

One  such  trace  has  occasionally  been  found  in  2  Cor.  v. 
16.  In  that  verse,  after  Paul  has  spoken  of  the  complete 
break  that  comes  in  a  man's  life  when  he  accepts  the  bene- 
fits of  Christ's  death,  he  sa}rs :  "Wherefore  we  henceforth 
know  no  man  after  the  flesh :  even  though  we  have  known  Christ 
after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we  know  him  so  no  more."  Some  in- 
terpreters have  discovered  in  the  words,  "even  though  we  have 
known  Christ  after  the  flesh,"  a  reference  to  a  fleshly  con- 
ception of  Christ  which  laid  stress  upon  His  Davidic  descent, 
His  connection  with  the  Jewish  people,  and  in  general  His 
ordinary  human  relationships,  to  the  neglect  of  His  higher, 
divine  nature.  That  fleshly  conception  of  Christ  might  then 
be  regarded  as  the  primitive  conception,  which  Paul  himself 
shared  until  a  mature  stage  of  his  Christian  life.  But  this 
latter  suggestion  is  excluded  not  only  by  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Epistles  (in  which  Paul  never  displays  the  slightest  con- 
sciousness of  any  such  revolution  in  his  idea  of  Christ),  buh 
also  especially  by  the  present  passage.  The  passage  deals 
with  the  complete  and  immediate  break  which  comes  in  a  man's 
way  of  thinking  when  the  death  of  Christ  becomes  representa- 
tive of  him — that  is,  at  the  beginning  of  his  Christian  life.  It  is 
therefore  entirely  out  of  accord  with  the  context  to  suppose 
that  Paul  is  contrasting  an  immature  stage  of  his  own  Chris- 
tian life  with  the  present  mature  stage.  But  he  is  also  not 
alluding  to  any  lower,  fleshly  conception  of  Christ  as  being 
held  by  others.  The  interpretation  which  finds  in  the  pas- 
sage a  human  Messiah  in  contrast  to  the  divine  Christ  of  Paul, 
errs  fundamentally  in  making  the  words  "according  to  the 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  131 

flesh"  modify  "Christ,"  whereas  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  clearly 
modify  the  verb  "know."  Paul  says  not,  "Even  if  we  have 
known  a  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  we  know  such  a  Christ 
no  longer,"  but,  "Even  if  we  have  known  Christ  with  a  fleshly 
kind  of  knowledge,  we  know  Him  in  such  a  way  no  longer."  He 
is  not  speaking  of  two  different  conceptions  of  Christ,  but 
of  two  different  ways  of  knowing  Christ.  There  is  in  the 
passage,  therefore,  not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  primi- 
tive conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  different  from  Paul's 
conception. 

In  2  Cor.  xi.  4  Paul  speaks  of  "another  Jesus"  whom  his 
opponents  in  Corinth  were  proclaiming  or  might  proclaim.  Was 
this  "other  Jesus"  the  historical  Jesus,  in  distinction  from 
the  heavenly  Christ  of  Paul?  Does  this  verse  refer  to  a 
primitive,  Palestinian  conception  of  Jesus  different  from  the 
conception  held  by  Paul? 

The  verse  is  certainly  very  difficult ;  it  constitutes  a 
famous  crux  interpretum.  But  just  for  that  reason,  it  should 
not  be  made  the  foundation  for  far-reaching  theories.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  hint  elsewhere  in  2  Corinthians  that  the 
opponents  presented  a  view  of  the  person  of  Christ  different 
from  that  of  Paul ;  indeed  what  is  characteristic  of  the  polemic 
in  this  Epistle  is  that  doctrinal  questions  are  absent.  There 
is  not  even  any  evidence  that  the  opponents,  though  apparently 
they  laid  stress  upon  Jewish  descent,  Palestinian  connections, 
and  the  like,  and  so  may  perhaps  loosely  be  called  "Judaizers," 
insisted  upon  the  keeping  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  Apparently  Paul 
does  not  feel  required  to  defend  the  content  of  his  gospel 
at  all.  Certainly  he  does  not  feel  required  to  defend  his  doc- 
trine of  the  person  of  Christ.  But  if  the  opponents  had  really 
proclaimed  a  human  Jesus  different  from  the  divine  Christ  of 
Paul,  it  is  inconceivable  that  Paul  should  not  have  defended  his 
view.  If  there  is  one  thing  that  is  fundamental  in  the  religion 
of  Paul,  it  is  his  conception  of  Christ  as  divine  Redeemer. 
Any  denial  of  that  conception  would  certainly  have  called 
forth  anathemas  at  least  as  severe  as  those  which  were  hurled 
against  the  legalists  in  Galatia.  Yet  in  2  Cor.  x-xiii,  though 
these  chapters  contain  perhaps  the  bitterest  polemic  to  be 
found  anywhere  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  there  is  no  trace  of 
any  defense  of  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
The  natural  suggestion  is  that  such  defense  is  absent  because 


132  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

it  was  not  called  forth  by  anything  that  the  opponents  said. 
It  is  adventurous  exegetical  procedure  to  hang  a  heavy  weight 
upon  the  very  obscure  verse,  2  Cor.  xi.  4. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  obscurities  of  that  verse 
are  not  hopeless,  and  rightly  interpreted  the  verse  contains 
no  hint  of  a  primitive  conception  of  Jesus  different  from 
that  which  was  proclaimed  by  Paul.  The  translation  of  the 
American  Revised  Version  may  first  be  presented  as  a  basis 
of  discussion,  though  it  is  probably  incorrect  in  important 
particulars.  In  that  version  the  three  verses  £  Cor.  xi.  4-61 
read  as  follows  :  "For  if  he  that  cometh  preacheth  another 
Jesus,  whom  we  did  not  preach,  or  if  ye  receive  a  different 
spirit,  which  ye  did  not  receive,  or  a  different  gospel,  which 
ye  did  not  accept,  ye  do  well  to  bear  with  him.  5  For  I 
reckon  that  I  am  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chief  est  apostles. 
6  But  though  I  be  rude  in  speech,  yet  am  I  not  in  knowl- 
edge; nay,  in  every  way  have  we  made  this  manifest  unto 
you  in  all  things."  By  a  modification  of  this  translation  at  the 
end  of  verse  4,  the  whole  passage  might  mean:  "Bear  with 
me  in  my  boasting.  I  am  'boasting'  or  defending  myself 
only  in  ordej  that  you  may  not  be  deceived  by  the  opponent 
who  comes  to  you.  For  if  he  comes  arrogantly  proclaiming 
another  Jesus,  another  Spirit,  and  another  gospel,  ye  bear 
with  him  only  too  well.  Bear  with  me  then  when  I  defend 
myself.  For  I  am  not  a  bit  behind  these  'preeminent'  apostles,2 
since  despite  what  they  say  I  have  really  made  the  whole  truth 
known  to  you." 

Even  according  to  this  interpretation  there  is  no  real 
reference  to  a  Jesus  of  the  opponents  different  from  Paul's 
Jesus.  The  "other  Jesus"  of  the  opponents  existed,  rather, 
merely  in  their  own  inordinate  claims.  They  had  no  other 
Jesus,  no  other  Spirit,  and  no  other  gospel  to  offer.  They 
asserted,  indeed,  that  the  teaching  of  Paul  was  insufficient; 
they  asserted  that  they  had  fuller  information  about  Jesus, 


4.  el  i&v  yap  o  IpxV^os  aXXov  'Irjvow  Kypbaati  ov  OVK  cKripv£an-i>,  r)  irvtv^o.  Irtpov 
d  OVK  eXd/Sere,  rj  tvayyk\iov  eYcpof  8  OVK  e5e£a<70e,  *aX£s  &vkxtff0e.  5.  \oyL- 
fo/zai  yap  wdfr  ixrTfprjKtvai  TUV  virtp\lav  airoffroXui'  .  6.  el  5£  Kai  iStdbrr/s  TUJ  Xoyy, 
AXX'ou  rrj  yvuvet,  AXX'ev  iravri  QavtpuaavTts  kv  ira.<jiv  els  v^ds. 

3  The  translation  preferred  in  the  American  Revision,  "very  chiefest 
apostles,"  seems  to  he  based  upon  the  mistaken  view  that  the  farepX/ai> 
airoffroXoi  are  the  original  apostles  at  Jerusalem.  This  view  is  rejected 
in  the  above  paraphrase,  which  diverges  from  the  American  Revision  in 
other  ways  also. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  133 

about  the  Spirit,  and  about  the  gospel.  They  said,  "Paul  has 
not  made  the  full  truth  known  to  you."  Yet  they  had  really 
nothing  new  to  offer.  Paul  had  really  given  to  the  Corinthians 
the  whole  Jesus,  the  whole  Spirit,  and  the  whole  gospel. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  this  interpretation  is  un- 
satisfactory. It  is  obliged  to  supply  a  link  to  connect  verse 
4  with  verse  5 — namely,  the  thought,  "Bear  with  me."  That 
thought  is  here  entirely  unexpressed;  verse  1,  where  it  is  ex- 
pressed, is  too  far  back  to  be  in  view.  Thus  if  the  pronoun 
"him"  is  supplied  with  the  verb  at  the  end  of  verse  4,  there  is 
no  clear  connection  with  verse  5;  the  "for"  of  verse  5  is 
very  obscure.  If,  however,  the  pronoun  "me,"  not  "him," 
is  supplied  with  the  verb  at  the  end  of  verse  4,  all  is  plain. 
Since  the  pronoun  does  not  appear  at  all  in  the  Greek, 
the  translator  is  free  to  supply  it  as  the  context  demands ; 
and  the  context  apparently  demands  the  pronoun  "me."  The 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  then  as  follows :  "Bear  with  me  in 
my  'boasting.'  My  boasting  is  undertaken  to  prevent  you  from 
being  deceived.  For  if  the  one  who  comes  to  you  seeks  to 
commend  himself  by  claiming  fuller  knowledge  of  Jesus,  the 
Spirit,  or  the  gospel,  then  you  do  well  to  bear  with  me  in  my 
boasting,  you  do  well  to  listen  to  my  defense.  For  I  am  not 
afraid  of  the  comparison  with  the  opponent.  It  is  not  true 
that  I  have  concealed  from  you  anything  about  Jesus,  about 
the  Spirit,  or  about  the  gospel ;  on  the  contrary  I  have  made 
everything  known  to  you." 

The  exegetical  question  is  somewhat  complicated  by  a 
question  of  the  text  in  verse  4.  Manuscript  evidence  is  rather 
evenly  divided  between  the  present  tense  of  the  verb  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  and  the  imperfect  tense.1  Unquestionably 
the  imperfect  tense  is  the  more  difficult  reading;  it  is  favored 
therefore  by  the  well-known  principle  of  textual  criticism 
that  the  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  easier. 
If  the  imperfect  be  read,  it  may  perhaps  be  explained  as  the 
imperfect  tense  in  the  apodosis  of  a  condition  contrary  to 
fact ;  there  would  then  be  a  transition  from  one  form  of  con- 
dition to  another.  Paul  would  then  say:  "If  he  who  comes  is 
preaching  another  Jesus,  another  Spirit,  and  another  gospel 
— if  such  were  the  case  you  would  do  well  to  bear  with  my 
defense  of  my  own  preaching."  If  indeed  the  pronoun  "him" 
1  Between  hvcxtaQi  and  aveixtvOt  (or 


134  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

be  supplied  at  the  end  of  verse  4,  as  is  usually  done,  the  im- 
perfect might  be  taken  simply  as  referring  to  past  time,  and 
the  meaning  would  be :  "If  he  who  comes  is  preaching  another 
Jesus,  another  Spirit,  and  another  gospel — when  that  took 
place  ye  were  bearing  with  the  newcomer  only  too  well."  But 
even  so  the  imperfect  is  extremely  harsh,  and  on  the  whole  it 
is  more  probable  that  it  has  crept  in  by  a  copyist's  error— 
perhaps  in  conformity  to  the  same  imperfect  in  verse  1,  where 
the  imperfect  is  used  to  express  a  wish. 

What  has  caused  the  vast  majority  of  commentators  to 
supply  "him"  rather  than  "me"  at  the  end  of  verse  4  is  appar- 
ently the  parallel  with  2  Cor.  xi.  19,  20,  where  Paul  certainly 
expresses  the  thought,  "Bear  with  me,  for  you  bear  with  my 
arrogant  opponents  only  too  well."  The  parallel  does  indeed 
constitute  the  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  the  ordinary 
view  of  verse  4  which  supplies  the  pronoun  "him,"  and  regards 
the  adverb  "well"  as  sarcastic — "only  too  well."  But  the 
argument  is  not  decisive.  The  connection  with  verse  5  really 
fixes  the  pronoun  which  is  to  be  supplied  at  the  end  of  the 
preceding  verse.  Paul  is  defending  himself  against  the  charge, 
implied  in  verse  6,  that  he  had  not  made  the  full  truth  known. 
The  opponents  had  claimed  to  have  further  information  about 
Jesus,  the  Spirit,  and  the  gospel.  "But,"  says  Paul,  "if  that 
is  their  claim,  ye  do  well  to  listen  to  my  defense.  For  I  have 
made  Jesus  and  the  Spirit  and  the  gospel  just  as  fully  known 
to  you  as  they  have."  The  thought  is  perfectly  clear  if  only 
the  pronoun  "me"  be  supplied  at  the  end  of  verse  4. 

If,  however,  exegetical  tradition  be  followed,  and  the  pro- 
noun "him"  be  supplied,  the  essential  implications  of  the  pas- 
sage are  not  really  different.  In  no  case  is  anything  said 
about  a  conception  of  Jesus  really  differing  from  that  of  Paul. 
One  interpretation,  indeed,  definitely  excludes  such  an  impli- 
cation. The  passage  may  mean,  "If  the  one  who  comes  to  you 
preaches  another  Jesus — in  that  case  you  would  do  well  to 
bear  with  him.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  only  one 
Jesus.  Therefore  you  will  do  well  to  be  content  with  me. 
For  I  have  made  Jesus  fully  known  to  you."  According  to  this 
interpretation,  which  has  much  to  be  said  in  its  favor,  Paul 
refutes  the  opponents  and  their  arrogant  claims  of  bringing 
something  superior  to  Paul's  message,  by  a  reference  to  the 
obvious  fact  that  there  is  only  one  Jesus.  "If  they  had 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  135 

another  Jesus,"  Paul  says,  "then  they  might  claim  to  bring 
you  something  that  I  did  not  bring.  But  since,  unfortunately 
for  them,  there  is  of  course  only  one  Jesus,  and  since  I  made 
that  Jesus  fully  known  to  you,  they  cannot  maintain  any  supe- 
riority." This  interpretation  is  probably  to  be  preferred  among 
all  those  which  supply  the  pronoun  "him"  rather  than  "me" 
at  the  end  of  verse  4. 

At  any  rate,  whichever  interpretation  be  adopted,  Paul 
would  surely  have  expressed  himself  very  differently  if  the 
opponents  had  presented  an  account  of  Jesus  radically  con- 
tradictory to  his  own.  In  that  case  he  could  hardly  have 
appealed  merely  to  the  completeness  of  his  presentation.  In- 
stead, he  would  have  had  to  establish  the  truth  of  his  presenta- 
tion. As  it  is,  the  "other  Jesus"  of  the  Judaizers  existed  only 
in  their  own  inordinate  claims.  They  really  had  no  other 
Jesus  to  offer;  Paul  had  made  the  whole  Jesus  known.  The 
passage  contains  no  hint,  therefore,  of  a  primitive  conception  of 
Jesus  differing  from  the  lofty  conception  proclaimed  by  Paul. 
Thus  the  Pauline  Epistles  contain  not  the  slightest  trace 
of  any  conflict  with  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ.  About 
other  things  there  was  debate,  but  about  this  point  Paul 
appears  to  have  been  in  harmony  with  all  Palestinian  Chris- 
tians. Even  the  Judaizers  seem  to  have  had  no  objection  to 
the  heavenly  Christ  of  Paul.  But  if  the  Judaizers,  who  were 
Paul's  bitter  opponents,  had  no  objection  to  Paul's  view  of 
Christ,  it  could  only  have  been  because  the  original  apostles 
on  this  point  gave  them  not  even  that  slight  color  of  support 
which  may  have  been  found  with  regard  to  the  way  of  salva- 
tion in  the  apostles'  observance  of  the  Law.  The  fact  is  of 
enormous  importance.  The  heavenly  Christ  of  Paul  was  also 
the  Christ  of  those  who  had  walked  and  talked  with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  conclusion  involves  an  undue 
employment  of  the  argument  from  silence;  let  it  not  be  said 
that  although  the  original  apostles  did  not  share  Paul's  con- 
ception of  the  heavenly  Christ,  Paul  did  not  find  it  neces- 
sary to  enter  into  the  debate  in  his  Epistles.  For  on  this 
matter  Paul  could  not  possibly  have  kept  silent.  He  was  not 
in  the  habit  of  keeping  silent  when  the  essential  things  of 
his  gospel  were  called  in  question — the  anathemas  which  he 
pronounced  against  the  Judaizers  in  Galatia  and  the  sharp 


136  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

rebuke  which  he  administered  to  the  chief  of  the  apostles  at 
Antioch  are  sufficient  proof  of  his  fearlessness.  But  what 
can  possibly  be  regarded  as  essential  to  his  gospel  if  it  was 
not  his  doctrine  of  Christ  as  divine  Redeemer?  That  doc- 
trine was  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  his  being;  without  it  he 
was  less  than  nothing.  Yet  the  historian  is  asked  to  believe 
that  Paul  submitted  tamely,  without  a  word  of  protest,  to  the 
presentation  of  a  purely  human  Jesus.  The  thing  is  un- 
thinkable. Paul  would  not  have  submitted  to  the  preaching 
of  such  a  Jesus  if  the  preachers  had  all  been  angels  from 
heaven. 

What  is  really  most  significant  in  the  Pauline  Epistles 
therefore,  is  the  complete  absence  of  any  defense  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  Christ,  the  complete  absence,  indeed,  of  any  sys- 
tematic presentation  of  that  doctrine.  The  Pauline  view 
of  Christ  is  everywhere  presupposed,  but  nowhere  defended. 
The  phenomenon  is  very  strange  if  the  modern  naturalistic 
account  of  Jesus  be  correct.  According  to  that  account,  the 
historical  Jesus,  a  great  and  good  man,  came  after  His  death 
to  be  regarded  as  a  divine  Redeemer;  one  conception  of  Jesus 
gave  place  to  a  very  different  conception.  Yet  the  surprising 
thing  is  that  the  mighty  transition  has  left  not  the  slightest 
trace  in  the  primary  sources  of  information.  The  chief  wit- 
ness to  the  transcendent  conception  of  Jesus  as  divine  Re- 
deemer is  quite  unconscious  of  introducing  anything  new;  in- 
deed he  expressly  calls  attention  to  the  harmony  of  his  procla- 
mation with  that  of  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus.  There  is 
only  one  possible  conclusion — the  heavenly  Christ  of  Paul 
was  also  the  Christ  of  those  who  had  lived  with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  They  had  seen  Jesus  subject  to  all  the  petty  limita- 
tions of  human  life;  they  had  seen  Him  hungry  and  thirsty 
and  weary ;  they  had  toiled  with  Him  over  the  hills  of  Galilee ; 
yet  they  gave  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  one  who  regarded 
Him  as  the  divine  Redeemer  seated  on  the  throne  of  all  being, 
and  they  were  quite  unconscious  of  any  conflict  between  their 
view  and  his. 

Thus  Paul  was  not  regarded  as  an  innovator  with  respect 
to  Jesus  by  Jesus'  intimate  friends.  He  was  not  regarded  as 
an  innovator  even  with  regard  to  those  elements  in  his  message 
— such  as  freedom  from  the  Law — about  which  no  definite 
guidance  was  to  be  found  in  the  teaching  or  example  of  Jesus. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  137 

Still  less  was  he  regarded  as  an  innovator  in  his  account  of 
Jesus'  person.  With  regard  to  that  matter  even  the  Judaizers 
did  not  venture  to  disagree. 

But  if  Paul  regarded  himself,  and  was  regarded  by  the 
original  apostles,  as  a  true  disciple  of  Jesus,  how  did  he 
obtain  the  necessary  knowledge  of  Jesus'  life?  Was  his  knowl- 
edge limited  to  intuition  or  remote  hearsay;  or  had  he  oppor- 
tunities for  authentic  information? 

That  question  has  really  been  answered  by  the  outline  of 
Paul's  life  in  Chapters  II  and  III.  It  has  been  shown  that 
even  before  his  conversion,  in  Palestine,  Paul  must  have  become 
acquainted  with  the  facts  about  Jesus'  life  and  death.  The 
facts  were  common  property ;  even  indifference  could  not  have 
made  a  man  completely  ignorant  of  them.  But  far  from  being 
indifferent,  Paul  was  deeply  interested  in  Jesus,  since  he  was 
an  active  persecutor  of  Jesus'  disciples.  After  the  conversion, 
Paul  was  undoubtedly  baptized,  and  undoubtedly  came  into 
some  contact  with  Christians  in  Damascus.  The  presumption 
is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  presence  there  of  some  who  had 
known  Jesus  in  the  days  of  His  flesh;  the  independence  of 
which  Paul  is  speaking  in  Galatians  is  independence  over 
against  the  Jerusalem  apostles,  not  over  against  humble  dis- 
ciples in  Damascus,  and  it  does  not  relate  to  information 
about  details.  Three  years  after  the  conversion  Paul  visited 
Peter  at  Jerusalem,  and  also  met  James  the  brother  of 
Jesus.  It  is  quite  inconceivable  that  the  three  men  avoided 
the  subject  of  Jesus'  words  and  deeds.  The  fifteen  days  spent 
with  Peter  at  Jerusalem  brought  Paul  into  contact  with  the 
most  intimate  possible  source  of  information  about  Jesus. 

According  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  Paul  came  into  contact 
with  Barnabas  at  the  time  of  his  first  Jerusalem  visit.  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  this  detail,  the  later  association  of 
Barnabas  with  Paul,  at  Antioch  and  on  the  first  missionary 
journey,  is  generally  or  universally  recognized  as  historical. 
It  is  confirmed  by  the  association  of  the  two  men  at  the  time 
of  the  conference  with  the  Jerusalem  pillars  (Gal.  ii.  1).  Thus 
Paul  spent  several  years  in  the  most  intimate  association  with 
Barnabas.  Who  then  was  Barnabas?  According  to  Acts  iv. 
36,  37,  he  was  a  man  of  Cyprus  by  descent,  but  he  was  also 
a  member  of  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church.  The  kind  of  in- 
formation contained  in  this  passage  represents  just  that  ele- 


138  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

ment  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  which  is  being  generally 
accepted  by  recent  criticism.  With  regard  to  the  community 
of  goods  in  the  early  Jerusalem  Church,  it  is  sometimes  sup- 
posed that  the  author  of  Acts  has  erred  in  generalizing  and 
exalting  to  the  position  of  a  principle  what  was  really  done 
in  many  cases  by  generous  individuals.  But  in  order  that 
there  might  be  unhistorical  generalization,  there  must  have 
been  something  to  generalize.  Details,  therefore,  like  the  gen- 
erous act  of  Barnabas  in  selling  a  field  and  devoting  the  pro- 
ceeds to  the  needs  of  the  brethren,  are  thought  to  constitute 
the  solid  tradition  with  which  the  author  of  Acts  is  operating. 
Objections  in  plenty  may  be  raised  against  this  treatment  of 
the  narrative  as  a  whole,  but  certainly  the  concreteness  of 
the  little  detached  note  about  Barnabas  makes  a  specially 
favorable  impression.  It  will  probably  be  admitted  to-day 
by  the  majority  of  scholars  that  Barnabas  really  had  a  place 
in  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church.  But  if  so,  his  close  con- 
nection with  Paul  is  of  the  utmost  importance.  How  could 
Paul  possibly  have  been  for  years  intimately  associated  with 
Barnabas  in  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  without  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  facts  about  Jesus?  Is  it  to  be  supposed 
that  Barnabas,  who  had  lived  at  Jerusalem,  proclaimed  Jesus 
as  Saviour  without  telling  in  detail  what  sort  of  person  Jesus 
had  been,  and  what  He  had  said  and  done?  Or  is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  Paul  closed  his  ears  to  what  his  brother  mis- 
sionary said? 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  missionary  journey,  Barnabas 
and  Paul  were  accompanied  by  John  Mark,  and  Mark  appears 
again  in  the  company  of  Paul,  as  one  of  Paul's  trusted  helpers, 
in  Qol.  iv.  10  and  Philem.  24.  This  John  Mark  certainly  came 
from  the  Jerusalem  Church;  for  the  house  of  his  mother  is 
mentioned  as  a  meeting-place  for  the  Jerusalem  disciples  in  the 
incomparably  vivid  account  in  Acts  xii.  1-17  of  the  escape 
of  Peter  from  prison.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  Book 
of  Acts  as  a  whole,  the  twelfth  chapter  is  recognized  as  em- 
bodying primitive  tradition.  Even  Wellhausen  was  somewhat 
impressed  with  the  lifelike  detail  of  this  narrative ;  the  chapter, 
Wellhausen  admitted,  contains  elements  of  high  historical 
value.1  Certainly,  then,  the  mother  of  John  Mark  and  pre- 
sumably Mark  himself  were  members  of  the  primitive  Jerusa- 
1  Wellhausen,  Kritische  Analyse  der  Apostelgeschichte,  1914,  pp.  22f. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  139 

lem  Church.  Tradition,  moreover,  as  preserved  by  Papias  of 
Hierapolis,  connects  Mark  with  Peter  and  represents  the  Sec- 
ond Gospel  (attributed  to  Mark)  as  based  upon  Peter's  preach- 
ing.1 The  connection  of  Mark  with  Peter  is  confirmed  by  1 
Peter  v.  13.  In  general,  recent  criticism  is  favorably  dis- 
posed toward  the  Papian  tradition  about  the  Second  Gospel; 
that  tradition  is  often  admitted  to  have  some  basis  in  fact. 
Of  course  the  words  of  Papias  about  Mark's  connection  with 
Peter  naturally  refer,  at  least  in  part,  to  a  time  later  than 
the  formative  period  of  Paul's  life.  But  no  doubt  the  later  rela- 
tionship was  at  least  prepared  for  in  the  early  days  when  Mark 
and  Peter  were  together  in  Jerusalem.2  John  Mark,  therefore, 
constitutes  an  important  link,  not  only  between  Paul  and  the 
Jerusalem  Church,  but  also  between  Paul  and  one  of  the  most 
intimate  friends  of  Jesus.  Paul  would  have  been  able  to  learn 
the  facts  about  Jesus'  life  from  Mark  if  he  had  not  learned 
them  elsewhere. 

The  conference  between  Paul  and  the  Jerusalem  leaders, 
described  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10,  whether  or  no  it  was  identical  with 
the  Apostolic  Council  of  Acts  xv.  1-29,  would  naturally  bring 
an  enrichment  in  Paul's  knowledge  of  Jesus'  earthly  ministry. 
It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  at  the  conference  any  more 
than  at  the  first  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  the  subject  of 
the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  was  carefully  avoided.  Such 
avoidance  would  have  been  possible  only  if  the  Jerusalem 
Church  itself  had  been  indifferent  to  its  own  reminiscences  of 
Jesus'  earthly  ministry.  But  that  the  Jerusalem  Church  was 
not  indifferent  to  its  own  reminiscences  is  proved  by  the  preser- 
vation (evidently  at  Jerusalem)  of  the  tradition  contained  in 
the  Gospels.  The  existence  of  the  Gospels  shows  that  the 
memory  of  Jesus'  words  and  deeds  was  carefully  treasured  up 
in  the  Jerusalem  Church  from  the  earliest  times.  Paul  could 
hardly  have  come  into  contact  with  such  a  church  without  ob- 
taining information  about  Jesus.  He  could  not  have  failed  to 
obtain  information  even  if  he  had  been  anxious  to  avoid  it. 

1ln  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii,  39,  15. 

aB.  W.  Bacon  (Jesus  and  Paul,  1921,  pp.  15f.)  believes  that  the  con- 
nection between  Peter  and  Mark  is  probably  to  be  placed  only  in  the 
early  years,  principally  before  the  first  association  of  Mark  with  Paul. 
This  view,  which  is  insufficiently  grounded,  involves  a  rejection  of  the 
common  view,  attested,  for  example,  by  1  Peter  v.  13,  according  to  which 
Mark  was  also  with  Peter  at  a  later  time. 


140          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  not  anxious  to  avoid  it;  his 
apostolic  independence,  as  will  be  observed  below,  does  not 
really  presuppose  any  such  absurd  attitude  on  his  part. 

On  the  third  missionary  journey  Paul  was  accompanied  by 
Silas  (the  "Silvanus"  of  the  Pauline  Epistles).  According  to 
the  Book  of  Acts,  Silas,  like  Barnabas  and  Mark,  came  origi- 
nally from  the  Jerusalem  Church,  though  his  connection  with 
Jerusalem  is  not  traced  so  far  back.  He  is  said  to  have  been 
one  of  the  two  men  who  accompanied  the  Apostolic  Decree  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch  (Acts  xv.  £7).  This  assertion  of  course 
will  not  escape  unchallenged.  It  shares  no  doubt  to  some 
extent  the  criticism  which  has  been  directed  against  the  De- 
cree itself.  But  the  tendency  in  recent  years  is  to  find  a 
larger  and  larger  historical  basis  for  the  concreue  assertions  of 
the  author  of  Acts.  So  the  mention  of  Judas  and  Silas  as 
coming  from  Jerusalem  creates  a  favorable  impression.  It 
cannot  be  ruled  out  merely  because  it  stands  only  in  Acts, 
or  merely  because  it  is  connected  with  the  Decree.  Even  the 
Decree,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  now  often  admitted  to  be  a 
Decree  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  or  to  represent  the  substance 
of  such  a  decree,  even  by  those  scholars  who  suppose  that  Acts 
is  wrong  in  representing  Paul  as  being  present  when  the  Decree 
was  passed.  The  tradition  which  lies  back  of  Acts  xv,  there- 
fore, cannot  lightly  be  rejected.  There  is  certainly  some 
evidence,  therefore,  for  connecting  Silas  with  the  Jerusalem 
Church.  Of  course,  if  the  narrative  in  Acts  be  accepted  as 
it  stands,  as  it  is  being  accepted  more  and  more  generally 
to-day,  then  the  connection  of  Silas  with  the  Jerusalem  Church 
is  firmly  established.  That  connection  is  not  without  its  im- 
portance. It  shows  that  even  when  engaged  in  his  specifically 
Gentile  work,  Paul  had  not  shut  himself  off  from  the  sources 
of  information  about  Jesus. 

The  mention  of  Andronicus  and  Junias  in  Rom.  xvi.  7  is 
not  without  interest.  According  to  the  most  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse,  Andronicus  and  Junias  are  declared  to 
have  been  in  Christ  before  Paul  was  in  Christ.  They  were, 
therefore,  primitive  disciples.  Certain  other  details  are  more 
obscure.  Does  Paul  mean  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  were 
themselves  "apostles,"  the  word  "apostle"  being  used  here  in 
a  broad  sense?  In  that  case,  the  verse  may  be  translated, 
"Salute  Andronicus  and  Junias,  my  kinsmen  and  fellow-prison- 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  141 

ers,  who  are  noteworthy  among  the  apostles  who  were  before  me 
in  Christ."  Or  is  it  merely  said  that  Andronicus  and  Junias 
were  regarded  highly  by  the  apostles,  had  a  good  reputation 
among  them?  In  that  case,  the  relative  pronoun  is  no  doubt 
to  be  taken  with  the  words  "Andronicus  and  Junias"  rather 
than  with  the  word  "apostles" ;  and  two  details  are  mentioned : 
(1)  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  a  good  reputation  among 
the  apostles,  and  (2)  that  they  were  converted  earlier  than 
Paul.  Also  the  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "kinsmen"  is 
doubtful.  The  word  may  mean  merely  "members  of  the  same 
race,"  that  is,  "Jews" ;  or  it  may  mean  "members  of  the  same 
family,"  that  is,  "relatives."  Still  another  interpretation  is 
favored  by  Bohlig,  who  thinks  that  the  word  designates  An- 
dronicus and  Junias  as  members  of  the  Jewish  colony  at 
Tarsus,  the  boyhood  home  of  Paul.1  But  however  the  interest- 
ing exegetical  problems  may  be  solved,  it  seems  evident  that 
Andronicus  and  Junias  had  become  Christians  earlier  than 
Paul,  and  that  they  were  therefore  representatives  of  primitive 
Christianity.  The  presence  of  such  men  in  the  Church  at 
Rome — or  in  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  if  the  common  separation 
of  Rom.  xvi.  from  the  rest  of  Romans  (on  insufficient  grounds) 
be  adopted — is  interesting.  It  exemplifies  the  kind  of  personal 
connection  that  was  undoubtedly  maintained  between  primitive 
Christianity  and  the  Gentile  churches.  Even  far  away  in  the 
Gentile  world  Paul  was  not  altogether  removed  from  contact 
with  those  who  had  been  Christians  before  him.  Wherever  and 
however  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  become  disciples,  whether 
in  Jerusalem  or  elsewhere,  whether  by  the  instrumentality  of 
Jesus  Himself  or  by  the  instrumentality  of  His  apostles,  in  any 
case  they  had  become  disciples  in  the  very  earliest  days  of  the 
Church's  life.  It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  they  were 
ignorant  of  the  facts  about  Jesus,  and  in  all  probability  there 
were  other  such  persons,  even  in  Pauline  churches. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  to  lay  stress  upon  Andronicus  and 
Junias,  when  Peter  and  James  and  Barnabas  and  Mark  all 
came  into  close  contact  with  Paul.  Paul  had  abundant  oppor- 
tunity for  acquainting  himself  with  the  words  and  deeds  of 
Jesus. 

Three  important  facts  have  thus  far  been  established; 
(1)  Paul  regarded  himself  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
1  Bohlig,  Die  Oeisteskultur  von  Tarsos,  1913,  pp.  140-142. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

(2)  he  was  so  regarded  by  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus,  (3) 
he  had  abundant  sources  of  information  about  Jesus'  life.  The 
natural  conclusion  is  that  Paul  was  a  true  disciple  of  the  real 
Jesus. 

This  conclusion  is  thought  to  be  overthrown  by  two  con- 
siderations. In  the  first  place,  it  is  said,  Paul  himself  at- 
tests his  own  indifference  to  historical  information  about 
Jesus ;  and  in  the  second  place,  such  indifference  is  confirmed 
by  the  paucity  of  references  in  the  Epistles  to  Jesus'  words 
and  deeds.  These  two  considerations  lead  into  the  heart  of 
the  problem,  and  must  be  examined  with  some  care. 

The  indifference  of  Paul  toward  historical  information 
about  Jesus  is  thought  to  be  attested  chiefly  by  2  Cor.  v.  16 
and  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  In  2  Cor.  v.  16  Paul 
says,  "Even  if  we  have  known  Christ  according  to  the  flesh, 
yet  now  we  know  Him  so  no  more."  What  can  these  words 
mean,  it  is  asked,  except  that  ordinary  information  about 
Jesus,  dealing  with  the  details  of  His  earthly  life,  the  kind  of 
information  that  one  man  can  obtain  of  another  by  sight  and 
hearing,  has  become  valueless  for  the  Christian?  The  Chris- 
tian, Paul  says,  is  interested  not  at  all  in  what  eyewitnesses 
may  say  or  in  what  he  himself  may  remember  about  the  earthly 
life  of  Jesus ;  he  is  interested  only  in  the  direct  contact  which 
he  has  at  present  with  the  risen  Lord. 

This  interpretation  ignores  the  fact  that  the  assertion 
in  2  Cor.  v.  16  about  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is  only  an  appli- 
cation of  the  general  assertion  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse 
about  the  knowledge  of  persons  in  general.  "So  that,"  says 
Paul,  "we  from  now  on  know  no  one  after  the  flesh."  Paul 
says,  therefore,  not  only  that  he  does  not  know  Christ  after 
the  flesh,  but  also  that  he  does  not  know  any  man  after  the 
flesh,  and  the  two  assertions  must  obviously  be  interpreted  in 
the  same  way.  Therefore  the  interpretation  which  has  been 
proposed  for  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  if  it  is  to  commend  itself, 
must  also  be  applied  to  the  knowledge  of  every  man. 

But  when  it  is  so  applied  it  results  in  absurdity.  It 
would  make  Paul  indifferent  not  only  to  ordinary  information 
about  Jesus,  but  also  to  ordinary  information  about  men  in 
general.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  Paul  was  not  indifferent  to 
ordinary  information  about  men  in  general.  On  the  contrary, 
he  was  exceedingly  careful  about  getting  information  just  as 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  143 

accurate  as  could  possibly  be  secured.  Was  Paul  a  visionary, 
with  his  head  always  in  the  clouds,  indifferent  to  the  concrete 
problems  of  individual  men,  indifferent  to  what  men  had  to 
tell  him  about  their  various  earthly  relationships,  indifferent 
to  their  bodily  needs?  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
is  a  magnificent  refutation  of  such  a  caricature.  That  Epistle 
represents  Paul  as  a  pastor  of  souls,  unsurpassed  in  his  in- 
sight into  the  practical  problems  of  his  converts,  unsurpassed 
in  the  tact  with  which  he  applied  great  principles  to  special 
circumstances.  But  the  same  characteristics  appear  everywhere 
in  Paul.  Everywhere  Paul  is  the  true  friend,  the  true  patriot, 
and  the  true  man;  everywhere  he  exhibits  that  careful  atten- 
tion to  detail,  that  careful  recognition  of  special  relationships, 
which  is  lacking  in  genuinely  mystical  piety.  Some  pastors  are 
accustomed  to  say  the  same  thing  no  matter  what  questions 
are  laid  before  them;  they  can  only  enunciate  general  prin- 
ciples without  applying  them  to  special  problems ;  they  are  in- 
capable of  special  friendships  and  incapable  of  analyzing  actual 
situations.  It  is  not  so  in  the  case  of  Paul.  In  the  Pauline 
Epistles  special  problems  are  solved  in  the  light  of  eternal 
principles ;  but  the  special  problems  as  well  as  the  eternal 
principles  are  subjected  to  the  most  careful  examination.  Paul 
was  not  indifferent  to  ordinary  knowledge  of  his  fellow-men. 

Thus  when  Paul  says  that  he  knows  no  man  after  the  flesh 
he  does  not  mean  that  he  ignored  the  ordinary  knowledge  which 
comes  through  sight  and  hearing.  But  if  that  kind  of  knowl- 
edge is  not  excluded  from  the  relations  between  Paul  and  men 
in  general,  it  is  also  not  excluded  from  the  relations  between 
Paul  and  Christ;  for  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  evidently 
placed  in  parallel  with  the  former  part.  It  is  evidently  the 
same  kind  of  knowledge  which  is  excluded  in  both  cases.  Paul 
does  not  mean,  therefore,  that  he  was  indifferent  to  ordinary 
sources  of  information  about  Christ. 

What  he  does  mean  is  that  he  regarded  those  ordinary 
sources  of  information  not  as  an  end  in  themselves,  but  as  a 
means  to  an  end.  The  natural  man  according  to  Paul  does  not 
understand  the  true  significance  of  the  words  and  deeds  of 
his  fellow-men;  he  does  not  use  them  to  attest  spiritual  facts. 
The  man  who  is  in  Christ,  on  the  contrary,  even  when  he  uses 
ordinary  means  of  information,  is  acquiring  knowledge  of 
spiritual  relationships,  relationships  which  exist  in  the  new 


144  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

world.  So  it  is  also  with  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  The  nat- 
ural man  may  acquire  a  certain  knowledge  of  Christ;  he  may 
learn  what  Christ  said  and  did  and  what  were  the  worldly 
circumstances  of  His  life.  But  such  knowledge  is  a  knowledge 
according  to  the  flesh ;  it  does  not-  attain  to  the  true  signifi- 
cance even  of  those  facts  which  are  learned.  The  man  who  is 
in  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  may  operate  partly  with  the  same 
materials ;  but  even  when  he  is  operating  with  the  same  mate- 
rials, even  when  he  is  obtaining  by  sight  or  by  hearsay  knowl- 
edge of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus,  these  facts  now  are  in- 
vested with  a  higher  significance.  The  natural  man  detects  only 
the  outward  appearance  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus ;  the 
man  who  is  in  Christ  makes  them  attest  facts  that  have  sig- 
nificance in  the  new  world.  No  doubt  the  higher  knowledge  of 
Christ  of  which  Paul  is  speaking  is  not  limited  to  this  spiritual 
use  of  ordinary  sources  of  information;  no  doubt  there  is 
also  a  direct  intercourse  between  the  believer  and  the  risen 
Lord.  But  the  spiritual  use  of  the  ordinary  sources  of  infor- 
mation is  certainly  not  excluded.  Paul  does  not  mean  that  he 
was  indifferent  to  what  Jesus  said  and  did. 

Thus  2  Cor.  v.  16,  rightly  interpreted,  does  not  attest  any 
indifference  on  the  part  of  Paul  toward  the  information  about 
Jesus  which  came  to  him  through  contact  with  Jesus'  disciples. 
Such  indifference,  however,  is  also  thought  to  be  attested  by 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  In  Gal.  i,  ii,  Paul  emphasizes 
his  complete  independence  over  against  the  original  disciples. 
He  received  his  gospel,  he  says,  not  by  the  instrumentality  of 
men,  but  by  direct  revelation  from  the  risen  Christ.  Even 
after  the  revelation  he  felt  no  need  of  instruction  from  those 
who  had  been  apostles  before  him.  It  was  three  years  before 
he  saw  any  of  them,  and  then  he  was  with  Peter  only  fifteen 
days.  Even  when  he  did  finally  have  a  conference  with  the 
original  apostles,  he  received  nothing  from  them;  they  recog- 
nized that  God  had  already  entrusted  him  with  his  gospel  and 
that  they  had  nothing  to  add.  What  can  this  passage  mean, 
it  is  asked,  except  that  Paul  was  indifferent  to  tradition,  and 
derived  his  knowledge  of  Christ  entirely  from  revelation? 

In  answer,  it  is  sufficient  to  point  to  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11. 
Was  Paul  indifferent  to  tradition?  In  1  Cor.  xv.  3  he  himself 
attests  the  contrary;  he  places  tradition — something  that  he 
had  received — at  the  very  foundation  of  his  missionary 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  145 

preaching.  "For  I  delivered  unto  you  among  the  first  things," 
he  says,  "that  which  I  also  received."  The  word  "received" 
here  certainly  designates  information  obtained  by  ordinary 
word  of  mouth,  not  direct  revelation  from  the  risen  Christ; 
and  the  content  of  what  was  "received"  fixes  the  source  of 
the  information  pretty  definitely  in  the  fifteen  days  which 
Paul  spent  with  Peter  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  almost  universally 
admitted  that  1  Cor.  xv.  3fF.  contains  the  tradition  of  the 
Jerusalem  Church  with  regard  to  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus. 

The  comparison  with  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11  thus  exhibits  the  danger 
of  interpreting  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  one-sided  fashion. 
If  Galatians  stood  by  itself,  the  reader  might  suppose  that 
at  least  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  central  fact  of  Paul's 
gospel,  was  founded,  in  Paul's  preaching,  upon  Paul's  own 
testimony  alone.  In  Galatians  Paul  says  that  his  gospel  was 
not  derived  from  men.  But  his  gospel  was  grounded  upon 
the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Surely,  it  might  be  said,  there- 
fore, he  based  at  least  the  resurrection  not  at  all  upon  the 
testimony  of  others  but  upon  the  revelation  which  came  to 
him  from  Christ.  Is  it  possible  to  conceive  of  the  author 
of  Galatians  as  appealing  for  the  foundation  of  his  gospel 
to  the  testimony  of  Peter  and  the  twelve  and  other  brethren 
in  the  primitive  Church — to  the  testimony  of  exactly  those 
men  whose  mediatorship  he  is  excluding  in  Galatians?  Yet  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  is  exactly  what  Paul  did.  That  he  did 
so  is  attested  not  by  the  Book  of  Acts  or  by  any  source  upon 
which  doubt  might  be  cast,  but  by  one  of  the  accepted  epistles. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  must  always  be  interpreted  in 
the  light  of  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11. 

What  then  does  Paul  mean  in  Galatians  when  he  says  that 
he  received  his  gospel  directly  from  Christ?  The  answer  is 
perfectly  plain.  He  does  not  mean  that  when  he  drew  near  to 
Damascus  on  that  memorable  day  he  knew  none  of  the  facts 
about  Jesus ;  he  does  not  mean  that  after  that  day  his  knowledge 
of  the  facts  was  not  enriched  by  intercourse  with  Jesus'  friends. 
What  Jesus  really  gave  him  near  Damascus  was  not  so  much 
the  facts  as  a  new  interpretation  of  the  facts.  He  had  known 
some  of  the  facts  before,  but  they  had  filled  him  with  hatred. 
The  Galilean  prophet  had  cast  despite  upon  the  Law;  He  had 
broken  down  the  prerogatives  of  Israel ;  it  was  blasphemous, 


146  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

moreover,  to  proclaim  a  crucified  malefactor  as  the  Lord's 
Anointed.  Paul  had  known  the  facts  before ;  he  had  known  them 
only  too  well.  Now,  however,  he  obtained  a  new  interpretation 
of  the  facts ;  he  obtained  that  new  interpretation  not  by  human 
intermediation,  not  by  reflection  upon  the  testimony  of  the  disci- 
ples, not  by  the  example  of  the  holy  martyrs,  but  by  revelation 
from  Jesus  Himself.  Jesus  Himself  appeared  to  him.  He 
might  have  appeared  in  anger,  to  destroy  him  for  his  unspeak- 
able sin.  Instead,  He  appeared  in  love,  to  call  him  into  fel- 
lowship and  into  glorious  service,  to  commission  him  as  apostle 
of  the  One  whose  Church  he  had  laid  waste.  That  is  what 
Paul  means  when  he  says  that  he  received  his  gospel  directly 
from  the  risen  Christ. 

The  truth  is,  it  never  occurred  to  Paul  to  regard  the 
bare  facts  about  Jesus  as  constituting  a  "gospel";  it  never 
even  occurred  to  Paul  to  reflect  upon  all  the  sources  of  in- 
formation about  the  facts.  To  us  the  sources  of  information 
about  Jesus  are  limited:  therefore  they  are  searched  out  and 
numbered  and  weighed.  But  to  Paul  the  sources  of  information 
were  so  numerous  that  they  could  not  be  catalogued.  It  never 
occurred  to  him  to  regard  with  supreme  gratitude  the  particu- 
lar source  from  which  he  derived  any  particular  bit  of  informa- 
tion about  Jesus  any  more  than  we  regard  with  special  grati- 
tude the  newspaper  from  which  we  derive  our  knowledge  of  cur- 
rent events.  If  one  newspaper  had  not  printed  the  news,  others 
would  have  done  so ;  the  sources  of  information  are  so  numerous 
that  we  do  not  reflect  upon  them.  So  it  was  in  the  case  of 
Paul's  information  about  Jesus.  Bare  detailed  information 
about  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  did  not  in  Paul's  mind  con- 
stitute a  "gospel";  they  constituted  only  the  materials  upon 
which  the  gospel  was  based.  When  he  says,  therefore,  that 
he  did  not  receive  his  gospel  from  men  he  does  not  mean  that 
he  received  no  information  from  Peter  or  Barnabas  or  Mark 
or  James  or  the  five  hundred  brethren  who  had  seen  the  risen 
Lord.  What  he  does  mean  is  that  he  himself  was  convinced 
of  the  decisive  fact — the  fact  of  the  resurrection — not  by  the 
testimony  of  these  men,  but  by  the  divine  interposition  on  the 
road  to  Damascus,  and  that  none  of  these  men  told  him 
how  he  himself  was  to  be  saved  or  what  he  was  to  say  to  the 
Gentiles  about  the  way  of  salvation.  Materials  for  the  proof 
of  his  gospel  might  come  to  him  from  ordinary  sources  of  in- 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  147 

formation,  but  his  gospel  itself  was  given  to  him  directly  by 
Christ. 

Thus  Paul  does  not  directly  attest  any  indifference  on  his 
part  toward  tradition  about  the  life  of  Jesus.  But  is  not 
such  indifference  revealed  by  the  extreme  paucity  of  refer- 
ences in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  what  Jesus  said  and  did? 

In  answer  to  this  question  it  must  be  admitted  that  di- 
rect citations  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  of  words  of  Jesus,  and 
direct  references  to  the  details  of  Jesus'  life,  are  surprisingly 
few.  In  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  Paul  appeals  to  a  command  of  the 
Lord  about  divorce,  and  carefully  distinguishes  such  commands 
from  what  he  himself  is  saying  to  the  Corinthians  (verses  12, 
25).  In  1  Cor.  ix.  14,  he  calls  attention  to  an  ordinance  of  the 
Lord  to  the  effect  that  they  that  proclaim  the  gospel  should 
live  of  the  gospel.  In  these  passages  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  the  commands  of  "the  Lord"  are  commands  that  Jesus 
gave  during  His  earthly  ministry ;  they  are  certainly  not  com- 
mands given  to  Paul  by  the  risen  Christ.  For  the  words  which 
Paul  himself  wrote  to  his  churches,  by  virtue  of  his  apostolic 
authority,  themselves  constituted  commands  of  the  Lord  in 
the  broad  sense,  in  that  the  authority  of  the  Lord  was  behind 
them  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37)  ;  here,  therefore,  when  such  apostolic 
commands  are  distinguished  from  commands  of  the  Lord,  the 
commands  of  the  Lord  must  be  taken  in  a  narrower  sense.  They 
can  only  be  commands  given  b^  Jesus  during  His  earthly 
ministry.1 

These  passages  show  that  Paul  was  in  the  habit  of  dis- 
tinguishing what  Jesus  said  on  earth  to  His  disciples  from 
what  the  risen  Lord  said  to  him  directly  by  revelation.  They 
show,  moreover,  that  Paul  was  in  possession  of  a  fund  of  in- 
formation about  the  words  of  Jesus.  It  may  be  a  question 
why  he  did  not  draw  upon  the  fund  more  frequently ;  but  at  any 
rate,  the  fund  was  there. 

In  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  the  assurance  that  those  who  are  alive 
at  the  Parousia  shall  not  precede  those  that  have  died  is 
grounded  in  a  word  of  the  Lord  ("For  this  we  say  to  you  in  a 
word  of  the  Lord").2  Here  again  the  "word  of  the  Lord"  is 
probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  word  which  Jesus  spoke  while  He 
was  on  earth,  rather  than  as  a  revelation  made  by  the  risen 

1  Compare  Knowling,  The  Witness  of  the  Epistles,  1892,  pp.  319f. 
TOVTO  yap  vfj.lv  Xeyojuev  '&>  \6yu>  KvpLov. 


148  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Lord  directly  to  Paul.  If  this  interpretation  be  correct,  then 
this  passage  contains  another  incidental  reference  to  a  fund 
of  information  about  the  words  of  Jesus. 

Most  important  of  all,  however,  is  the  report  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23ff.  The 
report  is' introduced  by  the  words,  "For  I  received  from  the 
Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you."  What  does  Paul 
mean  by  the  expression  "received  from  the  Lord"?  Does  he 
mean  that  the  information  was  given  him  directly  by  the  risen 
Christ,  or  that  he  received  it  by  ordinary  word  of  mouth  from 
the  eyewitnesses?  The  former  interpretation  has  been  favored 
in  the  first  place  by  some  who  occupy  a  strictly  supernatural- 
istic  point  of  view,  to  whom  therefore  it  does  not  seem  strange 
that  the  risen  Christ  should  give  to  His  apostle  even  detailed 
information  about  past  events;  it  has  also  been  favored  by 
some  who  start  from  naturalistic  presuppositions,  and,  re- 
garding Paul  as  a  mystic  and  a  visionary,  seek  to  separate 
him  as  far  as  possible  from  historical  tradition  about  Jesus. 
But  from  either  of  these  two  points  of  view  the  interpreta- 
tion is  unsatisfactory.  Why  should  the  risen  Christ  give  to 
His  apostle  detailed  information  which  could  be  obtained  per- 
fectly well  by  ordinary  inquiry  from  the  eyewitnesses?  Such 
revelation  would  be  unlike  the  other  miracles  of  the  Bible. 
God  does  not  rend  the  heaven  to  reveal  what  can  be  learned 
just  as  well  by  ordinary  word  of  mouth.  But  this  interpreta- 
tion is  equally  unsatisfactory  from  the  naturalistic  point  of 
view.  Did  Paul  really  suppose  the  risen  Christ  to  have  given 
him  all  this  detailed  information  about  the  night  of  the  betrayal 
and  the  rest?  How  could  such  a  visionary  experience  be  ex- 
plained? The  only  possible  answer,  on  naturalistic  presupposi- 
tions, would  be  that  the  vision  merely  made  use  of  materials 
which  were  already  in  Paul's  mind ;  Paul  already  had  informa- 
tion from  the  eyewitnesses  about  the  Supper,  but  after  he  had 
forgotten  whence  he  had  received  the  information  it  welled 
up  again  from  his  subconscious  life  in  the  form  of  a  vision. 
This  explanation  involves  a  psychological  absurdity.  The 
area  of  Paul's  consciousness  was  not  so  limited  as  it  is  repre- 
sented in  modern  reconstructions  as  being.  If  Paul  received 
information  from  the  eyewitnesses  about  what  Jesus  said  and 
did  on  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  we  can  be  sure  that  he 
remembered  the  information  and  remembered  where  he  had  got 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  149 

it.  It  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  receive  it  all  over  again 
in  a  vision. 

There  are  therefore  serious  a  priori  objections  against 
finding  in  the  words  "received  from  the  Lord"  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23 
a  reference  to  direct  revelation.  But  this  interpretation  is 
not  really  favored  by  the  words  as  they  stand.  The  word 
"from,"  in  the  clause  "I  received  from  the  Lord,"  is  not  the 
only  word  used  for  "from"  after  the  word  "received";  this 
word  seems  to  indicate  not  the  immediate  but  the  ultimate 
source  of  what  is  received.1  Furthermore,  the  word  "re- 
ceived" 2  in  1  Cor.  xv.  3  certainly  refers  to  ordinary  informa- 
tion obtained  from  eyewitnesses ;  it  is  natural  therefore  to 
find  a  similar  usage  of  the  word  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  It  is  natural 
to  interpret  one  passage  after  the  analogy  of  the  other.  In 
1  Cor.  xv.  3ff.  Paul  is  certainly  appealing  to  ordinary  tradi- 
tion ;  probably,  therefore,  he  is  also  doing  so  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23ff . 
The  report  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  thus  to  be 
added  to  those  passages  which  contain  definite  citations  of  the 
words  of  Jesus. 

This  report  also  belongs  with  those  passages  in  the  Epis- 
tles which  attest  knowledge  of  the  details  of  Jesus'  life.  It 
is  sometimes  said  that  Paul  is  interested  only  in  two  facts 
about  Jesus,  the  death  and  the  resurrection.  Yet  in  1  Cor. 
xi.  23  he  refers  even  to  such  a  detail  as  the  betrayal,  and 
fixes  the  time  of  its  occurrence — "the  night  in  which  He  was 
betrayed."  Other  details  about  the  life  of  Jesus  may  be 
gleaned  from  the  Epistles.  Jesus,  according  to  Paul,  was  a 
Jew,  He  was  descended  from  David,  He  was  subject  to  the 
Mosaic  Law,  He  had  brothers,  of  whom  one  is  named,  He  car- 
ried on  a  ministry  for  the  Jews  (Rom.  xv.  8).  With  regard 
to  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  moreover,  Paul  was  inter- 
ested not  merely  in  the  bare  facts  themselves ;  he  was  also  inter- 
ested in  the  details  connected  with  them.  Thus  in  1  Cor.  xv.  4 
he  mentions  the  burial  of  Jesus  as  having  formed  a  part  of  his 
fundamental  missionary  preaching;  and  he  also  gives  in  the 
same  connection  an  extended  list  of  appearances  of  the  risen 
Christ.  It  is  possible  that  when  Paul  writes  to  the  Galatians 
that  Jesus  Christ  crucified  had  been  pictured  or  placarded  be- 
fore their  eyes  (Gal.  iii.  1),  he  is  referring,  not  merely  to  the 

J  &TTO  is  here   used,  not  irapa. 
a   7rapeXa/3cw. 


150  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

forcibleness  with  which  the  one  fact  of  Christ's  death  was 
proclaimed  in  Galatia,  but  also  to  the  vividness  with  which  the 
story  was  told  in  detail.  So  vivid  was  the  story  of  the  cruci- 
fixion as  Paul  told  it  in  Galatia  that  it  was  as  though  the 
Galatians  had  before  their  eyes  a  great  picture  of  Jesus  on 
the  cross. 

Moreover,  the  references  of  Paul  to  Jesus'  life  concern 
not  merely  details ;  some  of  them  also  attest  warm  appreciation 
of  Jesus'  character.  The  character  of  Jesus  is  indeed,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  exhibited  primarily  by  the  great  central  act  of 
love  by  which  He  came  to  earth  to  die  for  the  salvation  of 
men.  In  Phil.  ii.  5ff.,  the  unselfishness  of  Christ,  which  is 
held  up  for  imitation  by  the  Philippian  Christians,  is  found 
no  doubt  primarily  in  the  incarnation  and  in  the  Cross;  in 
Gal.  ii.  20,  the  love  of  Christ,  upon  which  the  faith  and  the 
gratitude  of  believers  are  based,  is  found  in  the  one  great 
fact  of  Christ's  death  ("who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for 
me").  But  there  are  also  passages  in  the  Epistles  which  show 
that  Paul  was  impressed  with  the  character  of  Jesus  not  only 
as  it  was  manifested  by  the  incarnation  and  by  the  atoning 
death,  but  also  as  it  appeared  in  the  daily  life  of  Jesus  through- 
out His  earthly  ministry.  The  plainest  of  such  passages,  per- 
haps, are  £  Cor.  x.  1  and  Rom.  xv.  2,  3.  When  Paul  speaks  of 
the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ,  he  refers  evidently  to 
the  impression  which  Jesus  made  upon  His  contemporaries ;  and 
when  he  says  that  Christ  "pleased  not  himself"  but  bore  re- 
proaches patiently,  he  is  evidently  thinking  not  only  of  the  gra- 
cious acts  of  incarnation  and  atonement  but  also  of  the  conduct 
of  Jesus  from  day  to  day.  In  2  Cor.  viii.  9  ("though  He  was 
rich  yet  for  your  sakes  He  became  poor"),  although  the  refer- 
ence may  be  primarily  to  the  poverty  of  any  human  life  as  com- 
pared with  the  glories  of  the  preexistent  Christ,  yet  the  peculiar 
choice  of  words  is  probably  due  to  the  details  of  Jesus'  life  of 
hardship ;  Paul  would  hardly  have  spoken  in  this  way  if  Jesus 
while  He  was  on  earth  had  lived  in  the  magnificence  of  an 
earthly  kingdom.  Even  in  Phil.  ii.  7,  though  the  "form  of 
a  servant"  refers  primarily  to  human  existence  as  distinguished 
from  the  glories  of  heaven,  yet  there  seems  to  be  also  an  im- 
pression of  the  special  humility  and  poverty  of  Jesus'  earthly 
life;  and  the  Cross  is  put  as  the  climax  of  an  obedience  which 
appeared  also  in  Jesus'  life  as  a  whole  (verse  8).  Back  of 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  151 

these  passages  there  lies  warm  appreciation  of  Jesus'  char- 
acter as  it  appeared  in  the  days  of  His  flesh.  Imitation  of 
Christ  (1  Thess.  i.  6 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  1)  had  its  due  place  in  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Paul,  and  that  imitation  was  founded 
not  only  upon  one  act,  but  upon  many  acts,  of  the  Lord. 
When  Paul  speaks  of  his  own  life  of  constant  self-sacrifice, 
in  which  he  seeks  not  his  own  comfort  but  the  salvation  of 
others,  as  being  led  in  imitation  of  Christ  (1  Cor.  x.  32-xi.  1), 
he  has  before  his  mind  the  lineaments  of  just  that  Jesus  who 
is  known  to  us  in  the  Gospels — that  Jesus  who  had  not  where 
to  lay  His  head,  who  went  about  doing  good,  and  who  preached 
the  gospel  to  the  poor. 

Thus  the  paucity  of  references  in  the  Pauline  Epistles 
to  the  teaching  and  example  of  Jesus  has  sometimes  been  exag- 
gerated. The  Epistles  attest  considerable  knowledge  of  the 
details  of  Jesus'  life,  and  warm  appreciation  of  His  character. 

Undoubtedly,  moreover,  Paul  knew  far  more  about  Jesus 
than  he  has  seen  fit,  in  the  Epistles,  to  tell.  It  must  always  be 
remembered  that  the  Epistles  do  not  contain  the  missionary 
preaching  of  Paul;  they  are  addressed  to  Christians,  in  whose 
case  much  of  the  primary  instruction  had  already  been  given. 
Some  things  are  omitted  from  the  Epistles,  therefore,  not 
because  they  were  unimportant,  but  on  the  contrary  just  be- 
cause they  were  fundamental ;  instruction  about  them  had  to  be 
given  at  the  very  beginning  and  except  for  special  reasons  did 
not  need  to  be  repeated.  Except  for  certain  misunderjstand- 
ings  which  had  arisen  at  Corinth,  for  example,  Paul  would 
never  have  set  forth  in  his  Epistles  the  testimony  by  which 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  established ;  yet  that 
testimony,  he  says,  was  fundamental  in  his  missionary  preach- 
ing. If  it  were  not  for  the  errorists  at  Corinth  we  should  never 
have  had  the  all-important  passage  about  the  appearances  of 
the  risen  Christ.  It  is  appalling  to  reflect  what  far-reaching 
conclusions  would  in  that  case  have  been  drawn  by  modern 
scholars  from  the  silence  of  Paul.  So  it  is  also  with  the  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28 ff.  That 
account  is  inserted  in  the  Epistles  only  because  of  certain  abuses 
which  had  happened  to  arise  at  Corinth.  Elsewhere  Paul  says 
absolutely  nothing  about  the  institution  of  the  Supper ;  indeed, 
in  the  Epistles  other  than  1  Corinthians  he  says  nothing  about 
the  Supper  at  all.  Yet  the  Lord's  Supper  was  undoubtedly 


152  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

celebrated  everywhere  in  the  Pauline  churches,  and  no  doubt 
was  grounded  everywhere  in  an  account  of  its  institution. 
Thus  the  resurrection  appearances  and  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  despite  the  fact  that  they  were  absolutely  fun- 
damental in  Paul's  teaching,  appear  each  only  once  in  the 
Epistles.  May  there  not  then  have  been  other  things  just  as 
prominent  in  Paul's  teaching  which  are  not  mentioned  at  all? 
These  two  things  are  mentioned  only  because  of  the  mis- 
understandings that  had  arisen  with  regard  to  them.  Certain 
other  things  just  as  important  may  be  omitted  from  the  Epis- 
tles only  because  in  their  case  no  misunderstandings  had  hap- 
pened to  arise.  It  must  always  be  remembered  that  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  are  addressed  to  special  needs  of  the  churches.  It 
cannot  be  argued,  therefore,  that  what  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Epistles  was  not  known  to  the  apostle  at  all. 

Thus  the  incidental  character  of  Paul's  references  to  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  shows  clearly  that  Paul  knew 
far  more  than  he  has  seen  fit  in  the  Epistles  to  tell.  The 
references  make  the  impression  of  being  detached  bits  taken 
from  a  larger  whole.  When,  for  example,  Paul  says  that  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  took  place  on  the  night  in 
which  Jesus  was  betrayed,  he  presupposes  on  the  part  of  his 
readers  an  account  of  the  betrayal,  and  hence  an  account  of  the 
traitor  and  of  his  position  among  the  apostles.  So  it  is  in 
other  cases  where  Paul  refers  to  the  life  and  teaching  of 
Jesus.  The  references  can  be  explained  only  as  presupposing  a 
larger  fund  of  information  about  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus. 
Unquestionably  Paul  included  in  his  fundamental  teaching  an 
account  of  what  Jesus  said  and  did. 

Indeed,  if  he  had  not  done  so,  he  would  have  involved 
himself  in  absurdity.  As  J.  Weiss  has  pointed  out  with  admir- 
able acuteness,  a  missionary  preaching  which  demanded  faith 
in  Jesus  without  telling  what  sort  of  person  Jesus  was  would 
have  been  preposterous.1  The  hearers  of  Paul  were  asked  to 
stake  their  salvation  upon  the  redeeming  work  of  Jesus.  But 
who  was  this  Jesus?  The  question  could  scarcely  be  avoided. 
Other  redeemers,  in  the  pagan  religion  of  the  time,  were  pro- 
tected from  such  questions;  they  were  protected  by  the  mists 
of  antiquity;  investigations  about  them  were  obviously  out  of 
1  J.  Weiss,  Das  alteste  Evangeliwm,  1903,  pp.  33-39. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  153 

place.  But  Paul  had  given  up  the  advantages  of  such  vague- 
ness. The  redeemer  whom  he  proclaimed  was  one  of  his  own 
contemporaries,  a  Jew  who  had  lived  but  a  few  years  before 
and  had  died  the  death  of  a  criminal.  Investigation  of  this 
Jesus  was  perfectly  possible;  His  brothers,  even,  were  still 
alive.  Who  was  He  then?  Did  He  suffer  justly  on  the  cross? 
Or  was  He  the  Righteous  One?  Such  questions  could  hardly 
be  avoided.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  were  not  avoided. 
The  incidental  references  in  the  Epistles,  scanty  though  they 
are,  are  sufficient  to  show  that  an  account  of  the  words  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  formed  an  important  part  of  the  teaching  of 
Paul. 

The  presumption  is,  therefore,  that  Paul  was  a  true  disciple 
of  Jesus.  He  regarded  himself  as  a  disciple;  he  was  so  re- 
garded by  his  contemporaries ;  he  made  use  of  Jesus'  teaching 
and  example.  But  is  this  presumption  justified?  Was  it 
the  real  Jesus  whom  Paul  followed?  The  question  can  be 
answered  only  by  a  comparison  of  what  is  known  about  Paul 
with  what  is  known  about  Jesus. 

But  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  comparison,  a  fundamental 
difficulty  arises.  How  may  Jesus  be  known?  Paul  is  known, 
through  his  own  letters.  But  how  about  Jesus?  The  sources 
of  information  about  Jesus  are  the  four  Gospels.  But  are  the 
Gospels  trustworthy? 

If  they  are  trustworthy,  then  it  will  probably  be  admitted 
that  Paul  was  a  true  disciple  of  Jesus.  For  the  Gospels, 
taken  as  a  whole,  present  a  Jesus  like  in  essentials  to  that 
divine  Lord  who  was  sum  and  substance  of  the  life  of  Paul. 
The  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  no  mere  prophet,  no  mere  inspired 
teacher  of  righteousness,  no  mere  revealer  or  interpreter  of 
God.  He  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  supernatural  person ;  a  heaven- 
ly Redeemer  come  to  earth  for  the  salvation  of  men.  So  much 
is  usually  being  admitted  to-day.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  real  facts  about  Jesus,  the  Gospels  present  a  supernatural 
Jesus.  This  representation  is  contained  not  merely  in  one  of 
the  Gospels;  it  is  contained  in  all  of  them.  The  day  is  past 
when  the  divine  Christ  of  John  could  be  confronted  with  a 
human  Christ  of  Mark.  On  the  contrary,  Mark  and  John,  it 
is  now  maintained,  differ  only  in  degree ;  Mark  as  well  as  John, 
even  though  it  should  be  supposed  that  he  does  so  less  clearly 


154  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

and  less  consistently,  presents  a  Jesus  similar  in  important 
respects  to  the  divine  Redeemer  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.1 

Thus  if  Paul  be  compared  with  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels, 
there  is  full  agreement  between  the  two.  The  Jesus  of  all  the 
Gospels  is  a  supernatural  person;  the  Jesus  of  all  the  Gospels 
is  a  Redeemer.  "The  Son  of  Man,"  according  to  the  shortest 
and  if  modern  criticism  be  accepted  the  earliest  of  the  Gos- 
pels, "came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many"  (Mk.  x.  45).  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  depend  upon  details.  The  very  choice  of  mate- 
rial in  the  Gospels  points  to  the  same  conclusion;  the  Gospels 
like  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  more  interested  in  the  death  of 
Jesus  than  in  the  details  of  His  life.  And  for  the  same  reason. 
The  Gospels,  like  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  are  interested  in  the 
death  of  Jesus  because  it  was  a  ransom  from  sin. 

But  this  similarity  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  to  the  Christ 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles  has  led  sometimes,  not  to  the  recogni- 
tion of  Paul  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  to  the  hypothesis  that 
the  Gospels  are  dependent  upon  Paul.  If  the  Gospels  are 
introducing  into  their  picture  of  Jesus  elements  derived  not 
from  the  real  Jesus  but  from  the  mythical  Christ  of  the  Epis- 
tles, then  of  course  they  will  display  similarity  to  the  Epistles ; 
but  such  similarity  will  scarcely  be  very  significant.  In  com- 
paring the  Epistles  with  the  Gospels,  the  historian  will  then  be 
comparing  not  Paul  with  Jesus,  but  Paul  with  Paul. 

If,  therefore,  Paul  is  to  be  compared  with  Jesus,  it  is  said, 
those  elements  which  are  derived  from  Paul  must  first  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  Gospels.  Even  after  this  separation  has  been 
accomplished,  however,  there  remains  in  the  Gospel  picture  of 
Jesus  a  certain  amount  of  similarity  to  the  Pauline  Christ; 
it  is  generally  admitted  that  the  process  by  which  Jesus  was 
raised  to  the  position  of  a  heavenly  being  was  begun  before 
the  appearance  of  Paul  and  was  continued  in  some  quarters 
in  more  or  less  independence  of  him.  Thus  if  Paul  is  to  be 
compared  with  the  real  Jesus,  as  distinguished  from  the  Christ 
of  Christian  faith,  the  historian,  it  is  said,  must  first  separate 
from  the  Gospel  picture  not  merely  those  details  which  were 
derived  distinctly  from  Paul,  but  also  the  whole  of  the  super- 

'See,    for  example,  J.    Weiss,   Dag    Urchristentum,    1914-1917,    pp.    540, 
547,  548. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  155 

natural  element.1  Mere  literary  criticism  will  not  accom- 
plish the  task ;  for  even  the  earliest  sources  which  can  be 
distinguished  in  the  Gospels  seem  to  lift  Jesus  above  the 
level  of  ordinary  humanity  and  present  Him  not  merely  as 
an  example  for  faith  but  also  as  the  object  of  faith.2  Even 
in  the  earliest  sources,  therefore,  the  historian  must  distinguish 
genuine  tradition  from  dogmatic  accretions ;  he  must  separate 
the  natural  from  the  supernatural,  the  believable  from  the 
unbelievable;  he  must  seek  to  remove  from  the  genuine  figure 
of  the  Galilean  prophet  the  tawdry  ornamentation  which  has 
been  hung  about  him  by  naive  and  unintelligent  admirers. 

Thus  the  Jesus  who  is  to  be  compared  with  Paul,  according 
to  the  modern  naturalistic  theory,  is  not  the  Jesus  of  the  Gos- 
pels ;  he  is  a  Jesus  who  can  be  rediscovered  only  through  a 
critical  process  within  the  Gospels.  And  that  critical  process 
is  very  difficult.  It  is  certainly  no  easy  matter  to  separate 
natural  and  supernatural  in  the  Gospel  picture  of  Jesus,  for 
the  two  are  inextricably  intertwined.  In  pulling  up  the  tares, 
the  historian  is  in  danger  of  pulling  up  the  wheat  as  well ;  in  the 
removal  of  the  supernatural  elements  from  the  story  of  Jesus, 
the  whole  of  the  story  is  in  danger  of  being  destroyed.  Certain 
radical  spirits  are  not  afraid  of  the  consequence;  since  the 
Jesus  of  the  Gospels,  they  say,  is  a  supernatural  person,  He  is 
not  a  real  person;  no  such  person  as  this  Jesus  ever  lived  on 
earth.  Such  radicalism,  of  course,  is  absurd.  The  Jesus  of 
the  Gospels  is  certainly  not  the  product  of  invention  or  of 
myth;  He  is  roo'ed  too  deep  in  historical  conditions;  He 
towers  too  high  above  those  who  by  any  possibility  could 
have  produced  Him.  But  the  radical  denials  of  the  historicity 
of  Jesus  are  not  without  interest.  They  have  at  least  called 
attention  to  the  arbitrariness  with  which  the  separation  of 
historical  from  unhistorical  has  been  carried  on  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  "liberal  Jesus." 

But  suppose  the  separation  has  been  completed ;  suppose  the 
historical  Jesus  has  been  discovered  beneath  the  gaudy  colors 
which  had  almost  hopelessly  defaced  His  portrait.  Even  then 

1  For  what  follows,  see,  in  addition  to  the  paper  mentioned  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  chapter,  "History  and  Faith,"  in  Princeton  Theological 
Review,  xiii,  1915,  pp.  337-351. 

aSee  Denney,  Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  1909. 


156  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  troubles  of  the  historian  are  not  at  an  end.  For  this  his- 
torical Jesus,  this  human  Jesus  of  modern  liberalism,  is  a 
monstrosity ;  there  is  a  contradiction  at  the  very  center  of  His 
being.  The  contradiction  is  produced  by  His  Messianic  con- 
sciousness. The  human  Jesus  of  modern  liberalism,  the  pure 
and  humble  teacher  of  righteousness,  the  one  who  kept  His 
own  person  out  of  His  message  and  merely  asked  men  to  have 
faith  in  God  like  His  faith — this  Jesus  of  modern  liberalism 
thought  that  He  was  to  come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  and 
be  the  instrument  in  judging  the  earth!  If  Jesus  was  pure  and 
unselfish  and  of  healthy  mind,  how  could  He  have  applied  to 
Himself  the  tremendous  conception  of  the  transcendent  Mes- 
siah? By  some  the  problem  is  avoided.  Some,  like  Wrede, 
deny  that  Jesus  ever  presented  Himself  as  the  Messiah ;  others, 
like  Bousset,  are  at  least  moving  in  the  same  direction.  But 
such  radicalism  cannot  be  carried  out.  The  Messianic  element 
in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  is  rooted  too  deep  in  the  sources 
ever  to  be  removed  by  any  critical  process.  It  is  established 
also  by  the  subsequent  development.  If  Jesus  never  thought 
Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  and  never  presented  Himself  as 
such,  how  did  His  disciples  come  to  regard  Him  as  the  Mes- 
siah after  His  death?  Why  did  they  not  simply  say,  "Despite 
His  death,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  coming?"  Why  did  they 
say  rather,  "Despite  His  death,  He  is  the  Messiah  ?"  1  They 
could  only  have  done  so  if  Jesus  had  already  presented  Himself 
to  them  as  Messiah  when  He  had  been  with  them  on  earth. 

In  recent  criticism,  such  radicalism  as  that  which  has  just 
been  discussed  is  usually  avoided.  The  presence  of  the  Mes- 
sianic element  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  cannot  altogether 
be  denied.  Sometimes,  indeed,  that  element  is  even  made  the 
determining  factor  in  all  of  Jesus'  teaching.  So  it  is  with  the 
hypothesis  of  "consistent  eschatology"  of  A.  Schweitzer  and 
others.2  According  to  that  hypothesis  Jesus  expected  the 
Kingdom  of  God  to  come  in  a  catastrophic  way  in  the  very 
year  in  which  he  was  carrying  on  His  ministry  in  Galilee,  and 
all  His  teaching  was  intended  to  be  a  preparation  for  the 
great  catastrophe.  Even  the  ethic  of  Jesus,  therefore,  is 
thought  to  have  been  constructed  in  view  of  the  approaching 

1 J.  Weiss,  "Das  Problem  der  Entstehung  des   Christentums,"  in  Archiio 
fur  Reliyionswissenschaft,  xvi,  1913,  p.  456. 
2  A.  Schweitzer,  Oeschichte  der  Leben-Jesu-Forschung,  1913,  pp.  390-443. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  157 

end  of  the  world,  and  is  thus  regarded  as  unsuitable  for  a 
permanent  world  order.  This  hypothesis  not  only  accepts  the 
Messianic  consciousness  of  Jesus,  but  in  one  direction  at  least 
it  even  exaggerates  the  implications  of  that  consciousness. 

Usually?  however,  this  extreme  also  is  avoided,  and  the 
historian  pursues,  rather,  a  policy  of  palliation.  Jesus  did 
come  to  regard  Himself  as  the  Messiah,  it  is  said,  but  He  did 
so  only  late  in  His  ministry  and  almost  against  His  will.  When 
He  found  that  the  people  were  devoted  to  sin,  and  that  He 
alone  was  fighting  God's  battle,  He  came  to  regard  Himself 
as  God's  chosen  instrument  in  the  establishment  of  the  King- 
dom. Thus  He  had  a  tremendous  consciousness  of  a  mission. 
But  the  only  category  in  which  He  could  express  that  con- 
sciousness of  a  mission  was  the  category  of  Messiahship.  In 
one  form,  indeed,  that  category  was  unsuitable;  Jesus  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  political  aspirations  associated 
with  the  expected  king  of  David's  line.  But  the  expectation 
of  the  Messiah  existed  also  in  another  form;  the  Messiah  was 
sometimes  regarded,  not  as  a  king  of  David's  line,  but  as  the 
heavenly  Son  of  Man  alluded  to  in  Daniel  and  more  fully  de- 
scribed in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch.  This  transcendent  form 
of  Messiahship,  therefore,  was  the  form  which  Jesus  used. 
But  the  form,  it  is  maintained,  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to 
us,  and  it  was  not  really  essential  to  Jesus ;  what  was  really 
essential  was  Jesus'  consciousness  of  nearness  to  God. 

Such  palliative  measures  will  not  really  solve  the  problem. 
The  problem  is  a  moral  and  psychological  problem.  How 
could  a  pure  and  holy  prophet  of  righteousness,  one  whose 
humility  and  sanity  have  made  an  indelible  impression  upon  all 
subsequent  generations — how  could  such  a  one  lapse  so  far 
from  the  sobriety  and  sanity  of  His  teaching  as  to  regard 
Himself  as  the  heavenly  Son  of  Man  who  was  to  be  the  instru- 
ment in  judging  the  world?  The  difficulty  is  felt  by  all  thought- 
ful students  who  proceed  upon  naturalistic  principles.  There 
is  to  such  students,  as  Heitmiiller  says,  something  almost  un- 
canny about  Jesus.1  And  the  difficulty  is  not  removed  by 
putting  the  genesis  of  the  Messianic  consciousness  late  in 
Jesus'  life.  Whether  late  or  early,  Jesus  did  regard  Himself 
as  the  Messiah,  did  regard  Himself  as  the  one  who  was  to  come 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven.  There  lies  the  problem.  How 
1Heitmuller,  Jesus,  1913,  p.  71. 


158  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

could  Jesus,  with  His  humility  and  sobriety  and  strength,  ever 
have  lapsed  so  far  from  the  path  of  sanity  as  to  assume  the 
central  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God? 

Here,  again,  radical  minds  have  drawn  the  logical  conclu- 
sions. The  Messianic  consciousness,  they  say,  is  an  example 
of  megalomania;  Jesus,  they  say,  was  insane.  Such  is  said 
to  be  the  diagnosis  of  certain  alienists.  And  the  diagnosis  need 
cause  no  alarm.  Very  likely  it  is  correct.  But  the  Jesus  who 
is  being  investigated  by  the  alienists  is  not  the  Jesus  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  liberal  Jesus,  if  he  ever  existed,  may 
have  been  insane.  But  that  is  not  the  Jesus  whom  the  Christian 
loves.  The  alienists  are  investigating  a  man  who  thought  he 
was  divine  and  was  not  divine ;  about  one  who  thought  He  was 
divine  and  was  divine  they  have  obviously  nothing  to  say. 

Two  difficulties,  therefore,  face  the  reconstruction  of  the 
liberal  Jesus.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  difficult  to  separate  the 
natural  from  the  supernatural  in  the  Gospel  picture  of  Jesus ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  after  the  separation  has  been  accom- 
plished, the  human  Jesus  who  is  left  is  found  to  be  a  mon- 
strosity, with  a  contradiction  at  the  very  center  of  His  being. 
Such  a  Jesus,  it  may  fairly  be  maintained,  could  never  have 
existed  on  earth. 

But  suppose  He  did  exist,  suppose  the  psychological  im- 
possibilities of  His  character  be  ignored.  Even  then  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  historian  are  not  overcome.  Another  question 
remains.  How  did  this  human  Jesus  ever  come  to  give  place  to 
the  superhuman  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament?  The  transition 
evidently  occurred  at  a  very  early  time.  It  is  complete  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.  And  within  Paul's  experience  it  was  cer- 
tainly no  late  development;  on  the  contrary  it  was  evidently 
complete  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  Christian  life;  the  Jesus 
in  whom  he  trusted  at  the  time  of  his  conversion  was  certainly 
the  heavenly  Christ  of  the  Epistles.  But  the  conversion  oc- 
curred only  a  very  few  years,  at  the  most,  after  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus.  Moreover,  there  is  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  a  conflict  between  the  heavenly  Christ  of 
Paul  and  any  "other  Jesus"  of  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church ; 
apparently  the  Christ  of  Paul  was  also  the  Christ  of  those 
who  had  walked  and  talked  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Such  is 
the  evidence  of  the  Epistles.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  Gospels. 
Like  Paul,  the  Gospels  present  no  mere  teacher  of  righteous- 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  159 

ness,  but  a  heavenly  Redeemer.  Yet  the  Gospels  make  the 
impression  of  being  independent  of  Paul.  Everywhere  the 
Jesus  that  they  present  is  most  strikingly  similar  to  the  Christ 
of  Paul;  but  nowhere — not  even  where  Jesus  is  made  to  teach 
the  redemptive  significance  of  His  death  (Mk.  x.  45) — is 
there  the  slightest  evidence  of  literary  dependence  upon  the 
Epistles.  Thus  the  liberal  Jesus,  if  he  ever  existed,  has  dis- 
appeared from  the  pages  of  history ;  all  the  sources  agree 
in  presenting  a  heavenly  Christ.  How  shall  such  agreement 
be  explained? 

It  might  conceivably  be  explained  by  the  appearances  of 
the  risen  Christ.  If,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Church's 
life,  Jesus  appeared  to  His  disciples,  after  His  death,  alive 
and  in  heavenly  glory,  it  is  conceivable  that  that  experience 
might  have  originated  the  lofty  New  Testament  conception  of 
Jesus'  person.  But  what  in  turn  caused  that  experience  itself? 
On  naturalistic  principles  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ 
can  be  explained  only  by  an  impression  which  the  disciples 
already  had  of  the  majesty  of  Jesus'  person.  If  they  had 
listened  to  lofty  claims  of  Jesus  like  those  which  are  recorded 
in  the  Gospels,  if  they  had  witnessed  miracles  like  the  walking 
on  the  water  or  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  then,  con- 
ceivably, though  not  probably,  they  might  have  come  to  believe 
that  so  great  a  person  could  not  be  holden  of  death,  and  this 
belief  might  have  been  sufficient,  without  further  miracle,  to 
induce  the  pathological  experiences  in  which  they  thought 
they  saw  Him  alive  after  His  passion.  But  if  the  miraculous 
be  removed  from  the  life  of  Jesus,  a  double  portion  of  the 
miraculous  must  be  heaped  up  upon  the  appearances.  The 
smaller  be  the  Jesus  whom  the  disciples  had  known  in  Galilee, 
the  more  unaccountable  becomes  the  experience  which  caused 
them  to  believe  in  His  resurrection.  By  one  path  or  another, 
therefore,  the  historian  of  Christian  origins  is  pushed  off  from 
the  safe  ground  of  the  phenomenal  world  toward  the  abyss 
of  supernaturalism.  To  account  for  the  faith  of  the  early 
Church,  the  supernatural  must  be  found  either  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  on  earth,  or  else  in  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ. 
But  if  the  supernatural  is  found  in  one  place,  there  is  no  ob- 
jection to  finding  it  in  both  places.  And  in  both  places  it  is 
found  by  the  whole  New  Testament. 

Three   difficulties,   therefore,   beset   the    reconstruction    of 


160  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  "liberal  Jesus."  In  the  first  place,  it  is  difficult  to  disen- 
gage His  picture  from  the  miraculous  elements  which  have 
defaced  it  in  the  Gospels ;  in  the  second  place,  when  the  sup- 
posed historical  Jesus  has  been  reconstructed,  there  is  a  moral 
contradiction  at  the  center  of  His  being,  caused  by  His  lofty 
claims ;  in  the  third  place,  it  is  hard  to  see  how,  in  the  thinking 
of  the  early  disciples,  the  purely  human  Jesus  gave  place  with- 
out the  slightest  struggle  to  the  heavenly  Christ  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  and  of  the  whole  New  Testament. 

But  suppose  all  the  difficulties  have  been  removed.  Sup- 
pose a  human  Jesus  has  been  reconstructed.  What  is  the  re- 
sult of  comparing  that  human  Jesus  with  Paul?  At  first 
sight  there  seems  to  be  nothing  but  contradiction.  But  closer 
examination  discloses  points  of  agreement.  The  agreement 
between  Jesus  and  Paul  extends  even  to  those  elements  in  the 
Gospel  account  of  Jesus  which  are  accepted  by  modern  natural- 
istic criticism. 

In  the  first  place,  Jesus  and  Paul  present  the  same  view 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  term  "kingdom  of  God"  is  not 
very  frequent  in  the  Epistles ;  but  it  is  used  as  though  familiar 
to  the  readers,  and  when  it  does  occur,  it  has  the  same  meaning 
as  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  similarity  appears,  in  the 
first  place,  in  a  negative  feature — both  in  Jesus  and  in  Paul, 
the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  is  divorced  from  all  political  and  ma- 
terialistic associations.  That  fact  may  seem  to  us  to  be  a 
matter  of  course.  But  in  the  Judaism  of  the  first  century  it 
was  far  from  being  a  matter  of  course.  On  the  contrary,  it 
meant  nothing  less  than  a  revolution  in  thought  and  in  life. 
How  did  Paul,  the  patriot  and  the  Pharisee,  come  to  separate 
the  thought  of  the  Kingdom  from  political  associations?  How 
did  he  come  to  do  so  even  if  he  had  come  to  think  that  the 
Messiah  had  already  appeared?  How  did  he  come  to  do  so 
unless  he  was  influenced  in  some  way  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus? 
But  the  similarity  is  not  merely  negative.  In  positive  aspects 
also,  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  Paul  is  similar  to  that  which 
appears  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Both  in  Jesus  and  in  Paul, 
the  implications  of  entrance  are  ethical.  "Or  know  ye  not," 
says  Paul,  "that  the  unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God"  (1  Cor.  vi.  9).  Then  follows,  after  these  words,  as 
in  Gal.  v.  19-21,  a  long  list  of  sins  which  exclude  a  man  from 
participation  in  the  Kingdom.  Paul  is  here  continuing  faith- 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  161 

fully  the  teaching  of  Him  who  said,  "Repent  ye;  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  Finally  both  in  Jesus  and 
in  Paul  the  Kingdom  appears  partly  as  present  and  partly  as 
future.  In  the  above  passages  from  Galatians  and  1  Corin- 
thians, for  example,  and  in  1  Cor.  xv.  50,  it  is  future;  whereas 
in  such  passages  as  Rom.  xiv.  17  ("for  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  not  eating  and  drinking  but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy 
in  the  Holy  Spirit"),  the  present  aspect  is  rather  in  view.  The 
same  two  aspects  of  the  Kingdom  appear  also  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus ;  all  attempts  at  making  Jesus'  conception  thor- 
oughly eschatological  have  failed.  Both  in  Jesus  and  in  Paul, 
therefore,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  both  transcendent  and  ethical. 
Both  in  Jesus  and  in  Paul,  finally,  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
means  joy  as  well  as  judgment.  When  Paul  says  that  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  "righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  he  is  like  Jesus  not  merely  in  word  but  in  the 
whole  spirit  of  the  message;  Jesus  also  proclaimed  the  coming 
of  the  Kingdom  as  a  "gospel." 

In  the  second  place,  Paul  is  like  Jesus  in  his  doctrine  of 
the  fatherhood  of  God.  That  doctrine,  it  will  probably  be 
admitted,  was  characteristic  of  Jesus;  indeed  the  tendency  in 
certain  quarters  is  to  regard  it  as  the  very  sum  and  substance 
of  all  that  Jesus  said.  Certainly  no  parallel  to  Jesus'  pres- 
entation of  God  as  Father  has  been  found  in  extra-Christian 
literature.  The  term  "father"  is  indeed  applied  to  God  here 
and  there  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  in  the  Old  Testament 
it  is  usually  in  relation  to  the  people  of  Israel  that  God  is 
thought  of  as  Father  rather  than  in  relation  to  the  individual. 
Even  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  true,  the  conception  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  is  not  without  importance.  The  conscious- 
ness of  belonging  to  God's  chosen  people  and  thus  being  under 
God's  fatherly  care  was  immensely  valuable  for  the  life  of  the 
individual  Israelite ;  it  was  no  mere  product  of  an  unsatisfying 
state  religion  like  the  religions  of  Greece  or  Rome.  There 
was  preparation  in  Old  Testament  revelation,  here  as  else- 
where, for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  In  Jewish  literature 
outside  of  the  Old  Testament,  moreover,  and  in  rabbinical 
sources,  the  conception  of  God  as  Father  is  not  altogether 
absent.1  But  it  appears  comparatively  seldom,  and  it  lacks 
altogether  the  true  content  of  Jesus'  teaching.  Despite  all 
1  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums,  2te  Aufl.,  1906,  pp.  432-434. 


162  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

previous  uses  of  the  word  "father"  as  applied  to  God,  Jesus 
was  ushering  in  a  new  era  when  He  taught  His  disciples  to 
say,  "Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven." 

This  conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  appears  in  Paul 
in  just  the  same  way  as  in  Jesus.  In  Paul  as  well  as  in  Jesus 
it  is  not  something  to  be  turned  to  occasionally;  on  the  con- 
trary it  is  one  of  the  constituent  elements  of  the  religious  life. 
It  is  no  wonder  that  the  words,  "God  our  Father,"  appear 
regularly  at  the  beginnings  of  the  Epistles.  The  father- 
hood of  God  in  Paul  is  not  something  to  be  argued  about  or 
defended ;  it  is  altogether  a  matter  of  course.  But  it  has  not 
lost,  through  repetition,  one  whit  of  its  freshness.  The  name 
"Father"  applied  to  God  in  Paul  is  more  than  a  bare  title; 
it  is  the  welling  up  of  the  depths  of  the  soul.  "Abba,  Father" 
on  the  lips  of  Paul's  converts  was  exactly  the  same,  not  only 
in  form  but  also  in  deepest  import,  as  the  word  which  Jesus 
first  taught  His  disciples  when  they  said  to  Him,  "Lord,  teach 
us  to  pray." 

But  the  fatherhood  of  God  in  Paul  is  like  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  in  even  more  definite  ways  than  in  the  fervor  of  the  re- 
ligious life  which  it  evokes.  It  is  also  like  Jesus'  teaching  in 
being  the  possession,  not  of  the  world,  but  of  the  household  of 
faith.  If,  indeed,  the  fatherhood  of  God  in  Jesus'  teaching 
were  like  the  fatherhood  of  God  in  modern  liberalism — a  rela- 
tionship which  God  sustains  toward  men  as  men — then  it  would 
be  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  the  teaching  of  Paul.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  both  Paul  and  Jesus  reserved  the  term 
Father  for  the  relation  in  which  God  stands  to  the  disciples 
of  Jesus.  One  passage,  indeed  (Matt.  v.  45;  Luke  vi.  35), 
has  been  quoted  as  making  God  the  Father  of  all  men.  But 
only  by  a  strange  misinterpretation.  It  is  strange  how  in  the 
day  of  our  boasted  grammatico-historical  exegesis,  so  egregious 
an  error  can  be  allowed  to  live.  The  prejudices  of  the  reader 
have  triumphed  here  over  all  exegetical  principles ;  a  vague 
modernism  has  been  attributed  to  the  sternest,  as  well  as  most 
merciful,  Prophet  who  ever  walked  upon  earth.  When  Jesus 
says,  "Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute 
you;  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven: 
for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and 
sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust,"  He  certainly  does 
not  mean  that  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men  both  evil  and  good. 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  163 

God  cares  for  all,  but  He  is  not  said  to  be  the  Father  of  all. 
On  the  contrary,  it  may  almost  be  said  that  the  very  point 
of  the  passage  is  that  God  cares  for  all  although  He  is  not 
the  Father  of  all.  That  it  is  which  makes  Him  the  example  for 
those  who  are  to  do  good  not  merely  to  friends  or  brothers 
but  also  to  enemies. 

This  interpretation  does  not  mean  that  God  does  not  stand 
toward  all  men  in  a  relation  analogous  to  that  of  a  father  to 
his  children ;  it  does  not  mean  that  He  does  not  love  all  or  care 
for  all.  But  it  does  mean  that  however  close  may  be  the  rela- 
tionship which  God  sustains  to  all  men,  the  lofty  term  Father 
is  reserved  for  a  relationship  which  is  far  more  intimate  still. 
Jesus  extends  to  all  men  those  common  blessings  which  the 
modern  preacher  sums  up  in  the  term  "fatherhood  of  God" ;  but 
He  extends  to  His  own  disciples  not  only  those  blessings  but 
infinitely  more.  It  is  not  the  men  of  the  world — not  the  "pub- 
licans," not  the  "Gentiles" — who  can  say,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  "Our  Father  which  art  in  Heaven."  Rather 
it  is  the  little  group  of  Jesus'  disciples — which  little  group, 
however,  all  without  exception  are  freely  invited  to  join. 

So  it  is  exactly  also  in  the  teaching  of  Paul.  God  stands, 
according  to  Paul,  in  a  vital  relation  to  all  men.  He  is  the 
author  of  the  being  of  all ;  He  cares  for  all ;  He  has  planted  His 
law  in  the  hearts  of  all.  He  stands  thus  in  a  relation  toward 
all  which  is  analogous  to  that  of  father  to  child.  The  Book 
of  Acts  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  Epistles  when  it  makes 
Paul  say  of  all  men,  "For  we  are  also  His  offspring."  But 
in  Paul  just  as  in  Jesus  the  lofty  term  "Father"  is  re- 
served for  a  more  intimate  relationship.  Paul  accepts  all  the 
truth  of  natural  religion;  all  the  truth  that  reappears  in  the 
vague  liberalism  of  modern  times.  But  he  adds  to  it  the  truth 
of  the  gospel.  Those  are  truly  sons  of  God,  he  says,  who  have 
been  received  by  adoption  into  God's  household,  and  in  whose 
hearts  God's  Spirit  cries,  "Abba,  Father." 

There  was  nothing  narrow  about  such  a  gospel ;  for  the 
door  of  the  household  of  faith  was  opened  wide  to  all.  Jesus 
had  died  in  order  to  open  that  door,  and  the  apostle  went  up 
and  down  the  world,  enduring  peril  upon  peril  in  order  to 
bring  men  in.  There  was  need  for  such  service,  because  of  sin. 
Neither  in  Jesus  nor  in  Paul  is  sin  covered  up,  nor  the  necessity 
of  a  great  transformation  concealed.  Jesus  came  not  to  reveal 


164  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

to  men  that  they  were  already  children  of  God,  but  to  make 
them  God's  children  by  His  redeeming  work. 

In  the  third  place,  Paul  is  like  Jesus  in  presenting  a  doc- 
trine of  grace.  Of  course  he  is  like  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels ; 
for  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  declared  that  the  Son  of  Man 
came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.  But  He  is  even  like 
the  Jesus  of  modern  reconstruction.  Even  the  liberal  Jesus 
taught  a  doctrine  of  grace.  He  taught,  it  for  example,  in  the 
parables  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard  and  of  the  servant 
coming  in  from  the  field.  In  those  two  parables  Jesus  ex- 
pressed His  opposition  to  a  religion  of  works,  a  religion  which 
can  open  an  account  with  God  and  seek  to  obtain  salvation 
by  merit.1  Salvation,  according  to  Jesus,  is  a  matter  of 
God's  free  grace;  it  is  something  which  God  gives  to  whom 
He  will.  The  same  great  doctrine  really  runs  all  through  the 
teaching  of  Jesus;  it  is  the  root  of  His  opposition  to  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees ;  it  determines  the  confidence  with  which 
He  taught  His  disciples  to  draw  near  to  God.  But  it  is  the 
same  doctrine,  exactly,  which  appears  in  Paul.  The  Paul 
who  combated  the  legalists  in  Galatia,  like  the  Jesus  who  com- 
bated the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  was  contending  for  a  God 
of  grace. 

Let  it  not  be  objected  that  Jesus  maintained  also  the  ex- 
pectation of  a  judgment.  For  in  this  particular  also  He  was 
followed  by  Paul.  Paul  also,  despite  his  doctrine  of  grace, 
expected  that  the  Christians  would  stand  before  the  judgment- 
seat.  And  it  may  be  remembered  in  passing  that  both  in  Jesus 
and  in  Paul  the  judgment-seat  is  a  judgment-seat  of  Christ. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  ethical  teaching  of  Paul  is  strik- 
ingly similar  to  that  of  Jesus.  It  is  necessary  only  to  point 
to  the  conception  of  love  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  and  to 
the  substitution  for  external  rules  of  the  great  principles  of 
justice  and  of  mercy.  These  things  may  seem  to  us  to  be 
matters  of  course.  But  they  were  not  matters  of  course  in  the 
Jewish  environment  of  Paul.  Similarity  in  this  field  between 
Jesus  and  Paul  can  hardly  be  a  matter  of  chance.  Many 
resemblances  have  been  pointed  out  in  detail  between  the  ethical 

1  Compare  W.  Morgan,  The  Religion  and  Theology  of  Paul,  1917,  p. 
155:  "The  essential  import  of  Paul's  doctrine  [of  justification  by  faith] 
is  all  contained  in  the  two  parables  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  and 
the  servant  coming  in  from  the  field," 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  165 

teaching  of  Jesus  and  that  of  Paul.  But  the  most  important 
is  the  one  which  is  most  obvious,  and  which  just  for  that  rea- 
son has  sometimes  escaped  notice.  Paul  and  Jesus,  in  their 
ethical  teaching,  are  similar  because  of  the  details  of  what 
they  say ;  but  they  are  still  more  similar  because  of  what  they 
do  not  say.  And  they  are  similar  in  what  they  do  not  say 
despite  the  opposition  of  their  countrymen.  Many  parallels  for 
words  of  Jesus  may  have  been  found  in  rabbinical  sources.  But 
so  much  more,  alas,  is  also  found  there.  That  oppressive  plus 
of  triviality  and  formalism  places  an  impassable  gulf  between 
Jesus  and  the  Jewish  teachers.  But  Paul  belongs  with  Jesus, 
on  the  same  side  of  the  gulf.  In  his  ethic  there  is  no  formal- 
ism, no  triviality,  no  casuistry — there  is  naught  but  "love, 
joy,  peace,  longsuffering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness, 
meekness,  self-control."  What  has  become  of  all  the  rest? 
Was  it  removed  by  the  genius  of  Paul?  It  is  strange  that 
two  such  men  of  genius  should  have  arisen  independently  and 
at  the  same  time.  Or  was  the  terrible  plus  of  Pharisaic  for- 
malism and  triviality  burned  away  from  Paul  when  the  light 
shone  around  him  on  the  way  to  Damascus  and  he  fell  at  the 
feet  of  the  great  Teacher? 

Points  of  contact  between  Jesus  and  Paul  have  just  been 
pointed  out  in  detail,  and  the  list  of  resemblances  could  be 
greatly  increased.  The  likeness  of  Paul  to  Jesus  extends  even 
to  those  features  which  appear  in  the  Jesus  of  modern  liberal- 
ism. What  is  more  impressive,  however,  than  all  similarity  in 
detail  is  the  similarity  in  the  two  persons  taken  each  as  a 
whole.  The  Gospels  are  more  than  a  collection  of  sayings 
and  anecdotes ;  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  more  than  a  collection 
of  reasoned  discussions.  In  the  Gospels,  a  person  is  revealed, 
and  another  person  in  the  Epistles.  And  the  two  persons 
belong  together.  It  is  impossible  to  establish  that  fact  fully 
by  detailed  argument  any  more  than  it  is  possible  to  explain 
exactly  why  any  two  persons  are  friends  to-day.  But  the 
fact  is  plain  to  any  sympathetic  reader.  The  writer  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  would  have  been  at  home  in  the  company 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

What  then  was  the  true  relation  between  Paul  and  Jesus? 
It  has  been  shown  that  Paul  regarded  himself  as  a  disciple  of 
Jesus,  that  he  was  so  regarded  by  those  who  had  been  Jesus' 
friends,  that  he  had  abundant  opportunity  for  acquainting 


166  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

himself  with  Jesus'  words  and  deeds,  that  he  does  refer  to 
them  occasionally,  that  he  could  have  done  so  oftener  if  he 
had  desired,  that  the  imitation  of  Jesus  found  a  place  in  his 
life,  and  that  his  likeness  to  Jesus  extends  even  to  those  ele- 
ments in  Jesus'  life  and  teaching  which  are  accepted  by  modern 
naturalistic  criticism  as  authentic.  At  this  point  the  problem 
is  left  by  the  great  mass  of  recent  investigators.  Wrede  is 
thought  to  be  refuted  already;  the  investigator  triumphantly 
writes  his  Q.  E.  D.,  and  passes  on  to  something  else. 

But  in  reality  the  problem  has  not  even  been  touched.  It 
has  been  shown  that  the  influence  of  Jesus  upon  Paul  was 
somewhat  greater  than  Wrede  supposed.  But  that  does  not 
make  Paul  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  The  true  relationships  of  a 
man  are  determined  not  by  things  that  lie  on  the  periphery 
of  his  life,  but  by  what  is  central  1 — central  both  in  his  own 
estimation  and  in  his  influence  upon  subsequent  generations. 
And  what  was  central  in  Paul  was  certainly  not  the  imitation 
of  Jesus.  At  that  point,  Wrede  was  entirely  correct ;  he  has 
never  really  been  silenced  by  the  chorus  of  protest  with  which 
his  startling  little  book  was  received.  It  is  futile,  therefore,  to 
point  to  the  influence  of  Jesus  upon  Paul  in  detail.  Such  a 
method  may  be  useful  in  correcting  exaggerations,  but  it  does 
not  touch  the  real  question.  The  plain  fact  remains  that  if 
imitation  of  Jesus  had  been  central  in  the  life  of  Paul,  as  it 
is  central,  for  example,  in  modern  liberalism,  then  the  Epistles 
would  be  full  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus.  It  is  insuffi- 
cient to  point  to  the  occasional  character  of  the  Epistles.  No 
doubt  the  Epistles  are  addressed  to  special  needs ;  no  doubt 
Paul  knew  far  more  about  Jesus  than  in  the  Epistles  he  has 
found  occasion  to  tell.  But  there  are  passages  in  the  Epistles 
where  the  current  of  Paul's  religious  life  runs  full  and  free, 
where  even  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  even  through  the  dull 
medium  of  the  printed  page,  it  sweeps  the  heart  of  the  sympa- 
thetic reader  on  with  it  in  a  mighty  flood.  And  those  passages 
are  not  concerned  with  the  details  of  Jesus'  earthly  life.  They 
are,  rather,  the  great  theological  passages  of  the  Epistles — 
the  second  chapter  of  Galatians,  the  fifth  chapter  of  2  Corin- 
thians, and  the  eighth  chapter  of  Romans.  In  these  chapters, 
religion  and  theology  are  blended  in  a  union  which  no  critical 
1  Wrede,  Paulus,  1904,  p.  93  (English  Translation,  Paul,  1907,  p.  161). 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  167 

analysis  can  ever  possibly  dissolve;  these  passages  reveal  the 
very  center  of  Paul's  life. 

The  details  of  Jesus'  earthly  ministry  no  doubt  had  an  im- 
portant place  in  the  thinking  of  Paul.  But  they  were  impor- 
tant, not  as  an  end  in  themselves,  but  as  a  means  to  an  end. 
They  revealed  the  character  of  Jesus ;  they  showed  why  He 
was  worthy  to  be  trusted.  But  they  did  not  show  what  He 
had  done  for  Paul.  The  story  of  Jesus  revealed  what  Jesus 
had  done  for  others :  He  had  Sealed  the  sick ;  He  had  given 
sight  to  the  blind ;  He  had  raised  the  dead.  But  for  Paul  He 
had  done  something  far  greater  than  all  these  things — for 
Paul  He  had  died. 

The  religion  of  Paul,  in  other  words,  is  a  religion  of  re- 
demption. Jesus,  according  to  Paul,  came  to  earth  not  to 
say  something,  but  to  do  something;  He  was  primarily  not 
a  teacher,  but  a  Redeemer.  He  came,  not  to  teach  men  how 
to  live,  but  to  give  them  a  new  life  through  His  atoning  death. 
He  was,  indeed,  also  a  teacher,  and  Paul  attended  to  His 
teaching.  But  His  teaching  was  all  in  vain  unless  it  led  to 
the  final  acceptance  of  His  redemptive  work.  Not  the  details 
of  Jesus'  life,  therefore,  but  the  redemptive  acts  of  death  and 
resurrection  are  at  the  center  of  the  religion  of  Paul.  The 
teaching  and  example  of  Jesus,  according  to  Paul,  are  valuable 
only  as  a  means  to  an  end,  valuable  in  order  that  through 
a  revelation  of  Jesus'  character  saving  faith  may  be  induced, 
and  valuable  thereafter  in  order  that  the  saving  work  may 
be  brought  to  its  fruition  in  holy  living.  But  all  that  Jesus 
said  and  did  was  for  the  purpose  of  the  Cross.  "He  loved  me," 
says  Paul,  "and  gave  Himself  for  me."  There  is  the  heart  and 
core  of  the  religion  of  Paul. 

Jesus,  according  to  Paul,  therefore,  was  not  a  teacher, 
but  a  Redeemer.  But  was  Paul  right?  Was  Jesus  really  a 
Redeemer,  or  was  He  only  a  teacher?  If  He  was  only  a  teacher, 
then  Paul  was  no  true  follower  of  His.  For  in  that  case,  Paul 
has  missed  the  true  import  of  Jesus'  life.  Compared  with 
that  one  central  error,  small  importance  is  to  be  attributed 
to  the  influence  which  Jesus  may  have  exerted  upon  Paul  here 
and  there.  Wrede,  therefore,  was  exactly  right  in  his  formu- 
lation of  the  question.  Paul  regarded  Jesus  as  a  Redeemer. 
If  Jesus  was  not  a  Redeemer,  then  Paul  was  no  true  follower 


168  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  Jesus,  but  the  founder  of  a  new  religion.  The  liberal  theo- 
logians have  tried  to  avoid  the  issue.  They  have  pointed  out 
exaggerations;  they  have  traced  the  influence  of  Jesus  upon 
Paul  in  detail;  they  have  distinguished  religion  from  theology, 
and  abandoning  the  theology  of  Paul  they  have  sought  to 
derive  his  religion  from  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It  is  all  very 
learned  and  very  eloquent.  But  it  is  also  entirely  futile. 
Despite  the  numerous  monographs  on  "Jesus  and  Paul,"  Wrede 
was  entirely  correct.  He  was  correct,  that  is,  not  in  his  con- 
clusions, but  in  his  statement  of  the  question.  He  was  correct 
in  his  central  contention — Paul  was  no  true  disciple  of  the 
"liberal  Jesus."  If  Jesus  was  what  the  liberal  theologians 
represent  Him  as  being — a  teacher  of  righteousness,  a  relig- 
ious genius,  a  guide  on  the  way  to  God — then  not  Jesus  but 
Paul  was  the  true  founder  of  historic  Christianity.  For  his- 
toric Christianity,  like  the  religion  of  Paul,  is  a  religion  of 
redemption. 

Certainly  the  separation  of  religion  from  theology  in  Paul 
must  be  abandoned.  Was  it  a  mere  theory  when  Paul  said  of 
Jesus  Christ,  "He  loved  me  and  gave  Himself  for  me"?  Was 
it  merely  theological  speculation  when  he  said,  "One  died  for 
all,  therefore  all  died;  and  he  died  for  all,  that  they  that  live 
should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  who  for 
their  sakes  died  and  rose  again"?  Was  it  mere  theology  when 
he  said,  "Far  be  it  from  me  to  glory  save  in  the  cross  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ"?  Was  this  mere  theological  speculation? 
Surely  not.  Surely  it  was  religion — warm,  living  religion. 
If  this  was  not  true  religion,  then  where  can  religion  ever  be 
found?  But  the  passages  just  quoted  are  not  passages  which 
deal  with  the  details  of  Jesus'  life;  they  are  not  passages 
which  deal  with  general  principles  of  love  and  grace,  and 
fatherliness  and  brotherliness.  On  the  contrary,  they  deal  with 
just  the  thing  most  distasteful  to  the  modern  liberal  Church; 
they  deal  with  the  atoning  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  which  He  took  our  sins  upon  Him  and  bare  them  in  His 
own  body  on  the  tree.  The  matter  is  perfectly  plain.  Religion 
in  Paul  does  not  exist  apart  from  theology,  and  theology  does 
not  exist  apart  from  religion.  Christianity,  according  to 
Paul,  is  both  a  life  and  a  doctrine — but  logically  the  doctrine 
comes  first.  The  life  is  the  expression  of  the  doctrine  and 
not  vice  versa.  Theology,  as  it  appears  in  Paul,  is  not  a 


PAUL  AND  JESUS  169 

product  of  Christian  experience,  but  a  setting  forth  of  those 
facts  by  which  Christian  experience  has  been  produced.  If, 
then,  the  theology  of  Paul  was  derived  from  extra-Christian 
sources,  his  religion  must  be  abandoned  also.  The  whole  of 
Paulinism  is  based  upon  the  redemptive  work  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Thus  Paul  was  a  true  follower  of  Jesus  if  Jesus  was  a  di- 
vine Redeemer,  come  from  heaven  to  die  for  the  sins  of  men; 
he  was  not  a  true  follower  of  Jesus  if  Jesus  was  a  mere  re- 
vealer  of  the  fatherhood  of  God.  Paulinism  was  not  based 
upon  a  Galilean  prophet.  It  was  based  either  upon  the  Son  of 
God  who  came  to  earth  for  men's  salvation  and  still  holds 
communion  with  those  who  trust  Him,  or  else  it  was  based 
upon  a  colossal  error.  But  if  the  latter  alternative  be  adopted, 
the  error  was  not  only  colossal,  but  also  unaccountable.  It 
is  made  more  unaccountable  by  all  that  has  been  said  above, 
all  that  the  liberal  theologians  have  helped  to  establish,  about 
the  nearness  of  Paul  to  Jesus.  If  Paul  really  stood  so  near 
to  Jesus,  if  he  really  came  under  Jesus'  influence,  if  he  really 
was  intimate  with  Jesus'  friends,  how  could  he  have  misin- 
terpreted so  completely  the  significance  of  Jesus'  person;  how 
could  he  have  substituted  for  the  teacher  of  righteousness 
who  had  really  lived  in  Palestine  the  heavenly  Redeemer  of 
the  Epistles?  No  satisfactory  answer  has  yet  been  given. 
In  the  relation  between  Jesus  and  Paul  the  historian  discovers 
a  problem  which  forces  him  on  toward  a  Copernican  revolu- 
tion in  all  his  thinking,  which  leads  him  to  ground  his  own 
salvation  and  the  hope  of  this  world  no  longer  in  millions  of 
acts  of  sinful  men  or  in  the  gradual  progress  of  civilization, 
but  simply  and  solely  in  one  redemptive  act  of  the  Lord  of 
Glory. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    JEWISH    ENVIRONMENT 

OF  the  three  ways  in  which,  upon  naturalistic  principles, 
the  genesis  of  the  religion  of  Paul  has  been  explained,  one  has 
been  examined,  and  has  been  found  wanting.  Paulinism,  it  has 
been  shown,  was  not  based  upon  the  Jesus  of  modern  liberal- 
ism. If  Jesus  was  simply  a  teacher  of  righteousness,  a  revealer 
of  God,  then  the  religion  of  Paul  was  not  derived  from  Him. 
For  the  religion  of  Paul  was  a  religion  of  redemption. 

But  if  the  religion  of  Paul  was  not  derived  from  the  Jesus 
of  modern  liberalism,  whence  was  it  derived?  It  may,  of  course, 
have  been  derived  from  the  divine  Redeemer;  the  Jesus  whom 
Paul  presupposes  may  have  been  the  Jesus  who  actually  lived 
in  Palestine.  But  that  explanation  involves  the  intrusion  of 
the  supernatural  into  the  course  of  history;  it  is  therefore 
rejected  by  "the  modern  mind."  Other  explanations,  therefore, 
are  being  sought.  These  other  explanations  are  alike  in  that 
they  derive  the  religion  of  Paul  from  sources  independent  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Two  such  explanations  have  been  pro- 
posed. According  to  one,  the  religion  of  Paul  was  derived 
from  contemporary  Judaism ;  according  to  the  other,  it  was 
derived  from  the  paganism  of  the  Greco-Roman  world.  The 
present  chapter  will  deal  with  the  former  of  these  two  explana- 
tions— with  the  explanation  which  derives  the  religion  of  Paul 
from  contemporary  Judaism. 

This  explanation  is  connected  especially  with  the  names 
of  Wrede  1  and  Bruckner.2  It  has,  however,  seldom  been 
maintained  in  any  exclusive  way,  but  enters  into  combination 
with  other  hypotheses.  Indeed,  in  itself  it  is  obviously  insuf- 
ficient ;  it  will  hardly  explain  the  idea  of  redemption  in  the  re- 
ligion of  Paul.  But  it  is  thought  to  explain,  if  not  the  idea  of 

1  See  p.  26,  footnote  2. 

2  See  p.  27,  footnote  1. 

173 


174  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

redemption,  at  least  the  conception  of  the  Redeemer's  person, 
and  from  the  conception  of  the  Redeemer's  person  the  idea 
of  redemption  might  in  some  way  be  derived.  The  hypothesis 
of  Wrede  and  Briickner,  in  other  words,  seeks  to  explain  not 
so  much  the  soteriology  as  the  Christology  of  Paul;  it  derives 
from  the  pre-Christian  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah  the 
Pauline  conception  of  the  heavenly  Christ.  In  particular,  it 
seeks  to  explain  the  matter-of-course  way  in  which  in  the 
Epistles  the  Pauline  Christ  is  everywhere  presupposed  but  no- 
where defended.  Apparently  Paul  was  not  aware  that  his 
Christology  might  provoke  dissent.  This  attitude  is  very  dif- 
ficult to  explain  on  the  basis  of  the  ordinary  liberal  recon- 
struction ;  it  is  difficult  to  explain  if  the  Pauline  Christology 
was  derived  by  a  process  of  development  from  the  historical 
Jesus.  For  if  it  had  been  so  derived,  its  newness  and  revolu- 
tionary character  would  naturally  have  appeared.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  Paul  does  not  regard  it  as  anything  new;  he 
treats  his  doctrine  of  Christ  as  though  it  were  firmly  estab- 
lished and  required  no  defense.  How  shall  this  confident  atti- 
tude of  the  apostle  be  explained?  It  is  to  be  explained,  Wrede 
says,  by  the  theology  of  contemporary  Judaism.  Paul  was 
so  confident  that  his  conception  of  Christ  could  not  be  re- 
garded as  an  innovation  because  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  not 
an  innovation;  it  was  nothing  but  the  pre-Christian  Jewish 
notion  of  the  Messiah.  The  Pauline  conception  of  Christ  was 
thus  firmly  fixed  in  the  mind  of  Paul  and  in  the  minds  of  many 
of  his  contemporaries  long  before  the  event  on  the  road  to 
Damascus ;  all  that  happened  at  that  time  was  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  Christ  whom  Paul  had  believed  in  all  along  with 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  that  identification,  because  of  the 
meagerness  of  Paul's  knowledge  of  Jesus,  did  not  really  bring 
any  fundamental  change  in  the  Christology  itself.  After  the 
conversion  as  well  as  before  it,  the  Christ  of  Paul  was  simply 
the  Christ  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses. 

In  order  that  this  hypothesis  may  be  examined,  it  will  be 
advisable  to  begin  with  a  brief  general  survey  of  the  Jewish 
environment  of  Paul.  The  survey  will  necessarily  be  of  the 
most  cursory  character,  and  it  will  not  be  based  upon  original 
research.  But  it  may  serve  to  clear  the  way  for  the  real 
question  at  issue.  Fortunately  the  ground  has  been  covered 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  175 

rather  thoroughly  by  recent  investigators.  In  dependence  upon 
Schiirer  and  Charles  and  others,  even  a  layman  may  hope  to 
arrive  at  the  most  obvious  facts.  And  it  is  only  the  most 
obvious  facts  which  need  now  be  considered. 

Three  topics  only  will  be  discussed,  and  they  only  in  the 
most  cursory  way.  These  three  topics  are  (1)  the  divisions 
within  Judaism,  (2)  the  Law,  (3)  the  Messiah. 

The  most  obvious  division  within  the  Judaism  of  Paul's 
day  is  the  division  between  the  Judaism  of  Palestine  and  that 
of  the  Dispersion.  The  Jews  of  Palestine,  for  the  most  part, 
spoke  Aramaic ;  those  of  the  Dispersion  spoke  Greek.  With 
the  difference  of  language  went  no  doubt  in  some  cases  a  dif- 
ference in  habits  of  thought.  But  exaggerations  should  be 
avoided.  Certainly  it  is  a  serious  error  to  represent  the  Juda- 
ism of  the  Dispersion  as  being  universally  or  even  generally 
a  "liberal"  Judaism,  inclined  to  break  down  the  strict  require- 
ments of  the  Law.  The  vivid  descriptions  of  the  Book  of  Acts 
point  in  the  opposite  direction.  Opposition  to  the  Gentile  mis- 
sion of  Paul  prevailed  among  the  Hellenists  of  the  Dispersion 
as  well  as  among  the  Hebrews  of  Palestine.  On  the  whole, 
although  no  doubt  here  and  there  individuals  were  inclined  to 
modify  the  requirements  imposed  upon  proselytes,  or  even 
were  influenced  by  the  thought  of  the  Gentile  world,  the  Jews 
of  the  first  century  must  be  thought  of  as  being  a  strangely 
unified  people,  devoted  to  the  Mosaic  Law  and  jealous  of  their 
God-given  prerogatives. 

At  any  rate,  it  is  a  grave  error  to  explain  the  Gentile  mis- 
sion of  Paul  as  springing  by  natural  development  from  a  liberal 
Judaism  of  the  Dispersion.  For  even  if -such  a  liberal  Judaism 
existed,  Paul  did  not  belong  to  it.  He  tells  us  in  no  uncertain 
terms  that  he  was  a  "Hebrew,"  not  a  Hellenist;  inwardly, 
therefore,  despite  his  birth  in  Tarsus,  he  was  a  Jew  of  Pales- 
tine. No  doubt  the  impressions  received  from  the  Greek  city 
where  he  was  born  were  of  great  importance  in  his  prepara- 
tion for  his  life-work ;  it  was  no  mere  chance,  but  a  dispensation 
of  God,  that  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  spent  his  earliest 
years  in  a  seat  of  Gentile  culture.  But  it  was  Jerusalem  rather 
than  Tarsus  which  determined  Paul's  outlook  upon  life.  At 
any  rate,  however  great  or  however  little  was  the  influence 
of  his  boyhood  home,  Paul  was  not  a  "liberal"  Jew;  for  he 


176  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tells  us  that  he  was  a  Pharisee,  more  exceedingly  zealous  than 
his  contemporaries  for  the  traditions  of  his  fathers. 

Birth  in  Tarsus,  therefore,  did  not  mean  for  Paul  any 
adherence  to  a  liberal  Judaism,  as  distinguished  from  the  strict 
Judaism  of  Palestine.  According  to  Montefiore,  a  popular 
Jewish  writer  of  the  present  day,  it  even  meant  the  exact  op- 
posite; the  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion,  Montefiore  believes, 
was  not  more  liberal,  but  less  liberal,  than  the  Judaism  of 
Palestine;  it  was  from  Tarsus,  Montefiore  thinks,  that  Paul 
derived  his  gloomy  view  of  sin,  and  his  repellent  conception 
of  the  wrath  of  God.  Palestinian  Judaism  of  the  first  century, 
according  to  Montefiore,  was  probably  like  the  rabbinical 
Judaism  of  500  A.  D.,  and  the  rabbinical  Judaism  of  500  A.  D., 
contrary  to  popular  opinion,  was  a  broad-minded  regime  which 
united  devotion  to  the  Law  with  confidence  in  the  forgiveness 
of  God.1  This  curious  reversal  of  the  usual  opinion  is  of 
course  open  to  serious  objection.  How  does  Montefiore  know 
that  the  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion  was  less  liberal  and  held 
a  gloomier  view  of  sin  than  the  Judaism  of  Palestine?  The 
only  positive  evidence  seems  to  be  derived  from  4  Ezra,  which, 
with  the  other  apocalypses,  in  an  entirely  unwarranted  man- 
ner, is  apparently  made  to  be  a  witness  to  the  Judaism  of  the 
Dispersion.  And  were  the  rabbinical  Judaism  of  500  A.  D. 
and  the  Palestinian  Judaism  of  50  A.  D.  really  characterized 
by  that  sweet  reasonableness  which  Montefiore  attributes  to 
them?  There  is  at  least  one  testimony  to  the  contrary — the 
testimony  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus. 

Distinct  from  the  question  of  fact  is  the  question  of  value. 
But  with  regard  to  that  question  also,  Montefiore's  opinion 
may  be  criticized.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  the  easy- 
going belief  in  the  complacency  of  God,  celebrated  by  Monte- 
fiore as  characteristic  of  Judaism,  was,  if  it  ever  existed,  su- 
perior to  the  gloomy  questionings  of  4  Ezra.  Certainly  from 
the  Christian  point  of  view  it  was  not  superior.  In  its  shallow 
view  of  sin,  in  its  unwillingness  to  face  the  ultimate  problems 
of  sin  and  death,  the  Jewish  liberalism  of  Montefiore  is  exactly 
like  the  so-called  Christian  liberalism  of  the  modern  Church. 

1  Montefiore,  Judaism  and  St.  Paul,  1914.  Compare  Emmet,  "The  Fourth 
Book  of  Esdras  and  St.  Paul,"  in  Expository  Times,  xxvii,  1915-1916,  pp. 
551-556. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  177 

And  it  is  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  the  Christianity  of 
Paul.  At  one  point,  therefore,  Montefiore  is  entirely  correct. 
The  gospel  of  Paul  was  based  not  upon  a  mild  view  of  law, 
but  upon  a  strict  view;  not  upon  a  belief  in  the  complacency 
of  God,  but  upon  the  cross  of  Christ  as  a  satisfaction  of 
divine  justice.  Neither  before  his  conversion  nor  after  it  was 
Paul  a  "liberal." 

Besides  the  obvious  division  between  the  Judaism  of  Pales- 
tine and  that  of  the  Dispersion,  other  divisions  may  be  de- 
tected, especially  within  Palestinian  Judaism.  Three  principal 
Jewish  sects  are  distinguished  by  Josephus ;  the  Pharisees,  the 
Sadducees,  and  the  Essenes.1  Of  these,  the  first  two  appear 
also  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Essenes  were  separated  from 
the  ordinary  life  of  the  people  by  certain  ascetic  customs,  by 
the  rejection  of  animal  sacrifice,  and  by  religious  practices 
which  may  perhaps  be  due  to  foreign  influence.  Apparently 
the  Essenic  order  did  not  come  into  any  close  contact  with 
the  early  Church.  It  is  very  doubtful,  for  example,  whether 
Lightfoot  was  correct  in  finding  Essenic  influence  in  the  error- 
ists  combated  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  At  any 
rate,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  Paul  was 
influenced  from  this  source. 

The  Sadducees  were  a  worldly  aristocracy,  in  possession 
of  the  lucrative  priestly  offices  and  reconciled  to  Roman  rule. 
Their  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  resurrection  is  attested  not 
only  by  the  New  Testament  but  also  by  Josephus.  They  were 
as  far  removed  as  possible  from  exerting  influence  upon  the 
youthful  Paul. 

The  Pharisees  represented  orthodox  Judaism,  with  its  de- 
votion to  the  Law.  Their  popularity,  and  their  general, 
though  not  universal,  control  of  education,  made  them  the 
real  leaders  of  the  people.  Certainly  the  future  history  of 
the  nation  was  in  their  hands;  for  when  the  Temple  was  de- 
stroyed the  Law  alone  remained,  and  the  Pharisees  were  the 
chief  interpreters  of  the  Law.  It  was  this  party  which  claimed 
the  allegiance  of  Paul.  So  he  testifies  himself.  His  testimony 
is  often  forgotten,  or  at  least  the  implications  of  it  ignored. 
But  it  is  unequivocal.  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  not  a  liberal  Jew, 
but  a  Pharisee. 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  XVIII.  i.  2-5. 


178  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  mention  of  the  Pharisees  leads  naturally  to  the  second 
division  of  our  sketch  of  pre-Christian  Judaism — Lnamely,  the 
Law.  According  to  Baldensperger,  the  two  foci  around  which 
Judaism  moved  were  the  Law  and  the  Messianic  hope.  These 
two  foci  will  here  be  touched  upon  very  briefly  in  order. 

Unquestionably  post-exilic  Judaism  was  devoted  to  the 
Law.  The  Law  was  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
in  the  books  of  Moses.  But  around  the  written  Law  had  grown 
up  a  great  mass  of  oral  interpretations  which  really  amounted 
to  elaborate  additions.  By  this  "tradition  of  the  elders"  the 
life  of  the  devout  Jew  was  regulated  in  its  minutest  particulars. 
Morality  thus  became  a  matter  of  external  rules,  and  religion 
became  a  credit-and-debit  relationship  into  which  a  man  entered 
with  God.  Modern  Jews  are  sometimes  inclined  to  contradict 
such  assertions,  but  the  evidence  found  both  in  rabbinical 
sources  and  in  the  New  Testament  is  too  strong.  Exaggera- 
tions certainly  should  be  avoided;  there  are  certainly  many 
noble  utterances  to  be  found  among  the  sayings  of  the  Jewish 
teachers;  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  formalism  was  unre- 
lieved by  any  manifestations  whatever  of  the  goodness  of  the 
heart.  Nevertheless,  the  Jewish  writings  themselves,  along  with 
flashes  of  true  insight,  contain  a  great  mass  of  fruitless  cas- 
uistry; and  the  New  Testament  confirms  the  impression  thus 
produced.  In  some  quarters,  indeed,  it  is  customary  to  dis- 
credit the  testimony  of  Jesus,  reported  in  the  Gospels,  as  being 
the  testimony  of  an  opponent.  But  why  was  Jesus  an  op- 
ponent? Surely  it  was  because  of  something  blameworthy 
in  the  life  of  those  whom  He  denounced.  In  the  sphere  of 
moral  values,  the  testimony  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  worth 
having;  when  He  denounces  the  formalism  and  hypocrisy  of 
the  scribes,  it  is  very  difficult  for  any  student  of  the  history 
of  morals  not  to  be  impressed.  Certainly  the  denunciation 
of  Jesus  was  not  indiscriminate.  He  "loved"  the  rich  young 
ruler,  and  said  to  the  lawyer,  "Thou  art  not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Thus  the  Gospels  in  their  choice  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  which  they  record  have  not  been  prejudiced 
by  any  hatred  of  the  Jews;  they  have  faithfuly  set  down  va- 
rious elements  in  Jesus'  judgment  of  His  contemporaries.  But 

1  Baldensperger,  Die  Messianisch-apokalyptischen  Hoffnungen  des  Juden- 
lums,  3te  Aufl.,  1903,  pp.  88,  89. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  179 

the  picture  which  they  give  of  Jewish  legalism  cannot  be  put 
out  of  the  world;  it  seems  clear  that  the  religion  of  the 
Pharisees  at  the  time  of  Paul  was  burdened  with  all  the  defects 
of  a  religion  of  merit  as  distinguished  from  a  religion  of  grace. 

The  legalism  of  the  Pharisees  might  indeed  seem  to  possess 
one  advantage  as  a  preparation  for  the  gospel  of  Paul;  it 
might  seem  likely  to  produce  the  consciousness  of  sin  and 
so  the  longing  for  a  Saviour.  If  the  Law  was  so  very  strict 
as  the  Pharisees  said  it  was,  if  its  commands  entered  so  deep 
into  every  department  of  life,  if  the  penalty  which  it  imposed 
upon  disobedience  was  nothing  less  than  loss  of  the  favor  of 
a  righteous  God,  would  not  the  man  who  was  placed  under 
such  a  regime  come  to  recognize  the  imperfection  of  his  obe- 
dience to  the  countless  commands  and  so  be  oppressed  by  a 
sense  of  guilt?  Paul  said  that  the  Law  was  a  schoolmaster 
to  bring  the  Jews  to  Christ,  and  by  that  he  meant  that  the 
Law  produced  the  consciousness  of  sin.  But  if  the  Law  was  a 
schoolmaster,  was  its  stern  lesson  heeded?  Was  it  a  school- 
master to  bring  the  Jews  to  Christ  only  in  its  essential  char- 
acter, or  was  it  actually  being  used  in  that  beneficent  way  by 
the  Jews  of  the  age  of  Paul? 

The  answer  to  these  questions,  so  far  as  it  can  be  obtained, 
is  on  the  whole  disappointing.  The  Judaism  of  the  Pauline 
period  does  not  seem  to  have  been  characterized  by  a  pro- 
found sense  of  sin.  And  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  The 
legalism  of  the  Pharisees,  with  its  regulation  of  the  minute 
details  of  life,  was  not  really  making  the  Law  too  hard  to 
keep ;  it  was  really  making  it  too  easy.  Jesus  said  to  His 
disciples,  "Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  right- 
eousness of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  truth  is,  it  is  easier  to 
cleanse  the  outside  of  the  cup  than  it  is  to  cleanse  the  heart. 
If  the  Pharisees  had  recognized  that  the  Law  demands  not 
only  the  observance  of  external  rules  but  also  and  primarily 
mercy  and  justice  and  love  for  God  and  men,  they  would  not 
have  been  so  readily  satisfied  with  the  measure  of  their  obedi- 
ence, and  the  Law  would  then  have  fulfilled  its  great  function 
of  being  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  them  to  Christ.  A  low  view 
of  law  leads  to  legalism  in  religion ;  a  high  view  of  law  makes 
a  man  a  seeker  after  grace. 


180  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Here  and  there,  indeed,  voices  are  to  be  heard  in  the  Juda- 
ism of  the  New  Testament  period  which  attest  a  real  sense 
of  sin.  The  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,1  in  particular,  struggles 
seriously  with  the  general  reign  of  evil  in  the  lives  of  men,  and 
can  find  no  solution  of  the  terrible  problem.  "Many  have 
been  created,  but  few  shall  be  saved!"  (4  Ezra  viii.  3).  "Or 
who  is  there  that  has  not  transgressed  thy  covenant?"  (vii.  46). 
Alas  for  the  "evil  heart"  (vii.  48)  !  In  a  very  interesting 
manner  4  Ezra  connects  the  miserable  condition  of  humanity 
with  the  fall  of  Adam;  the  fall  was  not  Adam's  alone  but  his 
descendants'  (vii.  118).  At  this  point,  it  is  interesting  to 
compare  2  Baruch,2  which  occupies  a  somewhat  different  po- 
sition; "each  of  us,"  declares  2  Baruch,  "has  been  the  Adam 
of  his  own  soul."  And  in  general,  2  Baruch  takes  a  less  pessi- 
mistic view  of  human  evil,  and  (according  to  Charles'  estimate, 
which  may  be  correct)  is  more  self-complacent  about  the  Law. 
But  the  profound  sense  of  guilt  in  4  Ezra  might  conceivably 
be  a  step  on  the  way  to  saving  faith  in  Christ.  "O  Lord  above 
us,  if  thou  wouldst  .  .  .  give  unto  us  the  seed  of  a  new  heart !" 
(4  Ezra  viii.  6).  This  prayer  was  gloriously  answered  in  the 
gospel  of  Paul.3 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  4  Ezra  was  com- 
pleted long  after  the  Pauline  period;  its  attitude  to  the  prob- 
lem of  evil  certainly  cannot  be  attributed  with  any  confidence 
to  Saul  of  Tarsus,  the  pupil  of  Gamaliel.  It  is  significant 
that  when,  after  the  conversion,  Paul  seeks  testimonies  to 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  man,  he  looks  not  to  contemporary 
Judaism,  but  to  the  Old  Testament.  At  this  point,  as  else- 
where, Paulinism  is  based  not  upon  later  developments  but 
upon  the  religion  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms.  On  the 
whole,  therefore,  especially  in  the  light  of  what  was  said  above, 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Saul  the  Pharisee  held  a  spiritual 
view  of  law,  or  was  possessed  of  a  true  conviction  of  sin.  Paul 

1  See  Box,  in  Charles,  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 1913,  ii,  pp.  542-624;  Schiirer,  Oeschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  3te 
und  4te  Aufl.,  iii,  1909,  pp.  315-335  (English  Translation,  A  History  of  the 
Jewish  People,  Division  II,  vol.  iii,  1886,  pp.  93-104).  The  work  of 
Charles  has  been  used  freely,  without  special  acknowledgment,  for  the 
citations  from  the  Jewish  apocalypses. 

"See  Charles,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  470-526;  SchUrer,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  305-315 
(English  Translation,  Division  II,  vol.  iii,  pp.  83-93). 

'Compare  Box,  in  Charles,  op.  cit.,  p.  593,     See  also  Emmet,  loc.  cit. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  181 

was  convicted  of  his  sin  only  when  the  Lord  Jesus  said  to  him, 
"I  am  Jesus  whom  thou  persecutest." 

The  other  focus  about  which  pre-Christian  Judaism,  ac- 
cording to  Baldensperger,  revolved  was  the  Messianic  hope. 
This  hope  had  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament.  A  complete 
introduction  to  the  subject  would  of  course  deal  first  with  the 
Old  Testament  background.  Here,  however,  the  background 
will  have  to  be  dismissed  with  a  word. 

According  to  the  ordinary  "critical"  view,  the  doctrine 
of  an  individual  Messiah,  and  especially  that  of  a  transcendent 
Messiah,  arose  late  in  the  history  of  Israel.  At  first,  it  is 
maintained,  there  was  the  expectation  of  a  blessed  line  of 
Davidic  kings ;  then  the  expectation  of  a  line  of  kings  gave 
way  in  some  quarters  to  the  expectation  of  an  individual  king ; 
then  the  expectation  of  an  earthly  king  gave  way  in  some 
quarters  to  the  expectation  of  a  heavenly  being  like  the  "Son 
of  Man"  who  is  described  in  1  Enoch.  This  theory,  however, 
has  been  called  in  question  in  recent  years,  for  example  by 
Gressmann.1  According  to  Gressmann,  the  doctrine  of  an  in- 
dividual transcendent  Saviour  is  of  hoar  antiquity,  and  ante- 
dates by  far  the  expectation  of  a  blessed  line  of  Davidic  kings 
and  that  of  an  individual  earthy  king.  Gressmann  is  not,  of 
course,  returning  to  the  traditional  view  of  the  Old  Testament. 
On  the  contrary,  he  believes  that  the  ancient  doctrine  of  a 
heavenly  Saviour  is  of  extra-Israelitish  origin  and  represents 
a  widespread  myth.  But  in  the  details  of  exegesis,  the  radi- 
calism of  Gressmann,  as  is  also  the  case  with  many  forms 
of  radicalism  in  connection  with  the  New  Testament,  involves 
a  curious  return  to  the  traditional  view.  Many  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament,  formerly  removed  from  the  list  of  Mes- 
sianic passages  by  the  dominant  school  of  exegesis,  or  else 
regarded  as  late  interpolations,  are  restored  by  Gressmann  to 
their  original  significance.  Thus  the  suffering  servant  of 
Jehovah  of  Is.  liii  (a  passage  which  the  dominant  school  of 
exegesis  has  interpreted  in  a  collective  sense,  as  referring  to 
the  nation  of  Israel  or  to  the  righteous  part  of  the  nation)  is 
regarded  by  Gressmann  as  being  an  individual  (mythical)  figure 
to  whose  death  and  resurrection  is  attributed  saving  signifi- 
cance. 

1  Der  Ursprung  der  israetitisch-judischen  Eschatologie,  1905. 


182  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  super-naturalistic  view  of  the  Old  Testament  l  agrees 
with  Gressmann  in  his  individualistic  interpretation  of  such 
passages  as  Is.  liii,  but  differs  from  him  in  that  it  attributes 
objective  validity  to  the  representation  thus  obtained.  Ac- 
cording to  the  supernaturalistic  view,  Israel  was  from  the 
beginning  the  people  of  the  Promise.  The  Promise  at  first 
was  not  fully  defined  in  the  minds  of  all  the  people.  But  even 
at  the  beginning  there  were  glorious  revelations,  and  the  reve- 
lations became  plainer  and  plainer  as  time  went  on.  The  va- 
rious elements  in  the  Promise  were  not  indeed  kept  carefully 
distinct,  and  their  logical  connections  were  not  revealed.  But 
even  long  before  the  Exile  there  was  not  only  a  promise  of 
blessing  to  David's  line,  with  occasional  mention  of  an  indi- 
vidual king,  but  also  a  promise  of  a  Redeemer  and  King  who 
should  far  exceed  the  limits  of  humanity.  Thus  God  had  sus- 
tained His  people  through  the  centuries  with  a  blessed  hope, 
which  was  finally  fulfilled,  in  all  its  aspects,  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

Discussion  of  these  various  views  would  exceed  the  limits 
of  the  present  investigation.  All  that  can  here  be  done  is  to 
present  briefly  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the  later  period, 
in  which  Paul  lived. 

But  were  those  expectations  widely  prevalent?  Was  the 
doctrine  of  a  coming  Messiah  firmly  established  among  the 
Jews  of  the  time  of  Paul?  The  answer  to  these  questions 
might  seem  to  be  perfectly  plain.  The  common  impression 
is  that  the  Judaism  of  the  first  century  was  devoted  to  nothing 
if  not  to  the  hope  of  a  king  who  was  to  deliver  God's  people 
from  the  oppression  of  her  enemies.  This  impression  is  de- 
rived from  the  New  Testament.  Somewhat  different  is  the 
impression  which  might  be  derived  from  the  Jewish  sources 
if  they  were  taken  alone.  The  expectation  of  a  Messiah  hardly 
appears  at  all  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  even  in  the  Pseudepi- 
grapha  it  appears  by  no  means  in  all  of  the  books.  Even 
when  the  thought  of  the  future  age  is  most  prominent,  that 
age  does  not  by  any  means  appear  in  inevitable  connection 
with  a  personal  Messiah.  On  the  contrary,  God  Himself,  not 
His  instrument  the  Messiah,  is  often  represented  as  ushering 
in  the  new  era  when  Israel  should  be  blessed. 

Despite  this  difference  between  the  New  Testament  and  the 
*See  Beecher,  The  Prophets  and  the  Promise,  1905. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  183 

Jewish  literature,  it  is  generally  recognized  that  the  testimony 
of  the  New  Testament  must  be  essentially  correct.  The  pic- 
ture which  is  given  in  the  Gospels  of  the  intensity  of  the  Mes- 
sianic hope  among  the  Jews  must  be  founded  upon  fact  even 
if  Jesus  Himself  did  not  claim  to  be  the  Messiah.  Indeed,  it 
is  just  in  that  latter  case  that  the  testimony  in  some  respects 
would  become  strongest  of  all.  For  if  Jesus  did  not  claim  to 
be  the  Messiah,  the  attribution  of  Messiahship  to  Him  by  His 
disciples  could  be  explained  only  by  the  intensity  of  their  own 
Messianic  expectations.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Jesus 
did  claim  to  be  the  Messiah;  the  elimination  of  His  Messianic 
consciousness  has  not  won  the  assent  of  any  large  body  of 
historians.  He  did  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  He  died  be- 
cause the  Jews  regarded  Him  as  a  false  claimant.  But  His 
opponents,  no  less  than  His  disciples,  were  expecting  a  "King 
of  the  Jews."  The  New  Testament  throughout,  no  matter 
what  view  may  be  held  as  to  the  historicity  of  the  individual 
narratives,  is  quite  inexplicable  unless  the  Jews  both  in  Pales- 
tine and  in  the  Dispersion  had  a  doctrine  of  "the  Christ." 

This  New  Testament  representation  is  confirmed  here  and 
there  by  other  writers.  Even  Philo,1  as  Bruckner  remarks, 
pays  his  tribute,  though  in  an  isolated  passage,  to  the  common 
Messianic  doctrine.2  Josephus,3  also,  despite  his  effort 
to  avoid  offending  his  Roman  readers,  is  obliged  to  mention 
the  Messianic  hope  as  one  cause  of  the  great  war,  and  can 
only  make  the  reference  harmless  by  finding  the  Messiah  in 
the  Emperor  Vespasian !  4  On  the  whole,  the  fact  may  be 
regarded  as  certain  that  in  the  first  century  after  Christ  the 
expectation  of  the  Messiah  was  firmly  established  among  the 
Jews.  The  silence  of  great  sections  of  the  Apocrypha  may 
then  be  explained  partly  by  the  date  of  some  of  the  books. 
It  may  well  be  that  there  was  a  period,  especially  during  the 
Maccabean  uprising,  when  because  of  the  better  present  condi- 
tion of  the  nation  the  Messianic  hope  was  less  in  the  forefront 
of  interest,  and  that  afterwards,  under  the  humiliation  of 
Roman  rule,  the  thoughts  of  the  people  turned  anew  to  the 
expected  Deliverer.  But  however  that  may  be,  it  is  altogether 

1  De  proem  et  poen.  16  (ed.  Cohn,  1902,  iv,  p.  357). 

2  Bruckner,  Die  Entstehung  der  paulinischen  Christoloqie,  1903,  pp.  102f. 
'Bell.  Jud.  VI.  v.  4. 

'Schiirer,   op.    cit.,   ii,    1907,   p.    604    (English   Translation,    Division    II, 
vol.  ii,  1885,  p.  149). 


184  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

probable  that  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah  was  everywhere 
cherished  in  the  Judaism  of  the  time  of  Paul. 

If  then  the  hope  of  a  Messiah  was  prevalent  in  the  Judaism 
of  the  first  century?  what  was  the  nature  of  that  hope?  Two 
forms  of  Messianic  expectation  have  ordinarily  been  distin- 
guished. In  the  first  place,  it  is  said,  there  was  an  expecta- 
tion of  an  earthly  king  of  David's  line,  and  in  the  second  place, 
there  was  the  notion  of  a  heavenly  being  already  existing  in 
heaven.  The  former  of  these  two  lines  of  expectation  is  usually 
thought  to  represent  the  popular  view,  held  by  the  masses  of 
the  people;  and  the  latter  is  regarded  as  an  esoteric  doctrine 
held  by  a  limited  circle  from  which  the  apocalypses  have 
sprung. 

At  this  point,  Bruckner  is  somewhat  in  opposition  to  the 
ordinary  opinion;  he  denies  altogether  the  presence  in  first- 
century  Judaism  of  any  distinctive  doctrine  of  a  purely  human 
Messiah.1  The  Messiah,  he  says,  appears  in  all  the  sources 
distinctly  as  a  supernatural  figure.  Even  in  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon,  he  insists,  where  the  Messiah  is  represented  as  a 
king  reigning  upon  earth,  He  is  nevertheless  no  ordinary  king, 
for  He  destroys  His  enemies  not  by  the  weapons  of  war  but 
"by  the  breath  of  His  mouth."  In  the  Gospels,  moreover, 
although  the  people  are  represented  as  looking  for  a  king  who 
should  break  the  Roman  rule,  yet  they  demand  of  this  king 
works  of  superhuman  power. 

Undoubtedly  there  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  this  contention 
of  Bruckner.  It  may  perhaps  be  admitted  that  the  Messiah 
of  Jewish  expectation  was  always  something  more  than  an 
ordinary  king;  it  may  perhaps  be  admitted  that  He  was  en- 
dowed with  supernatural  attributes.  Nevertheless,  the  view 
of  Bruckner  is  exaggerated.  There  is  still  to  be  maintained 
the  distinction  between  the  heavenly  being  of  1  Enoch  and  the 
Davidic  king.  The  latter  might  perhaps  be  regarded  as  pos- 
sessed of  miraculous  powers,  but  still  He  was  in  the  essentials 
of  His  person  an  earthly  monarch.  He  was  to  be  born  like 
other  men;  He  was  to  rule  over  an  earthly  kingdom;  He  was 
to  conquer  earthly  armies;  presumably  He  was  to  die.  It  is 
significant  that  John  the  Baptist,  despite  the  fact  that  he 
had  as  yet  wrought  no  miracles,  was  apparently  thought  by 
some  to  be  the  Messiah  (Lk.  iii.  15;  John  i.  19-27).  Even 
1  Bruckner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  104-112. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  185 

if  this  representation  of  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  of  John 
should  be  regarded  as  quite  unhistorical,  still  it  does  show 
that  the  writers  of  these  two  Gospels,  neither  of  whom  was 
by  any  means  ignorant  of  Jewish  conditions,  regard  it  as  no 
incongruity  that  some  should  have  supposed  such  a  man  as 
John  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  Messiah,  therefore,  could  not 
have  been  regarded  always  as  being  like  the  heavenly  Son  of 
Man  of  1  Enoch.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  appeal  to  details. 
The  whole  New  Testament,  whatever  view  may  be  taken  of 
the  historicity  of  its  narratives  in  detail,  attests  the  preva- 
lence in  the  first  century  of  a  Messianic  expectation  according 
to  which  the  Messiah  was  to  be  an  earthly  king  of  David's  line. 
This  view  of  Messiahship  becomes  explicit  in  Justin  Mar- 
tyr's Dialogue  with  Trypho,  which  was  written  at  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  In  this  book,  the  Jewish  op- 
ponent of  Justin  represents  the  Messiah  as  a  "mere  man."  * 
No  doubt  this  evidence  cannot  be  used  directly  for  the  earlier 
period  in  which  Paul  lived.  There  does  seem  to  have  been  a 
reaction  in  later  Jewish  expectations  against  that  transcendent 
view  of  Messiahship  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  Christian 
Church.  Thus  the  apocalypses  passed  out  of  use  among  the 
Jews,  and,  in  some  cases  at  least,  have  been  preserved  only 
by  the  Church,  and  only  because  of  their  congruity  with 
Christian  views.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  when  Trypho 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  represents  the  Messiah 
as  a  "mere  man,"  he  is  attesting  a  development  in  the  Jewish 
doctrine  which  was  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Paul.  But  even 
in  that  case  his  testimony  is  not  altogether  without  value. 
Even  if  Trypho's  doctrine  of  a  merely  human  Messiah  be  a 
later  development,  it  was  probably  not  without  some  roots 
in  the  past.  If  the  Jews  of  the  first  century  possessed  both  the 
doctrine  of  an  earthly  king  and  that  of  a  heavenly  "Son  of 
Man,"  it  is  possible  to  see  how  the  latter  doctrine  might  have 
been  removed  and  the  former  left  in  sole  possession  of  the 
field  ;  but  if  in  the  first  century  the  transcendent  doctrine  alone 
prevailed,  it  is  unlikely  that  a  totally  different  view  could  have 
been  produced  so  quickly  to  take  its  place.2 


2  Indeed  Briickner  himself  (op.  cit.,  p.  110)  admits  that  there  were 
two  lines  of  thought  about  the  Messiah  in  pre-Christian  Judaism.  But 
he  denies  that  the  two  were  separated,  and  insists  that  the  transcendent 
conception  had  transformed  the  conception  of  an  earthly  king. 


186  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Thus  it  must  be  insisted  against  Bruckner  that  in  the  first 
century  the  transcendent  conception  of  Messiahship  attested 
by  the  apocalypses  was  not  the  only  conception  that  prevailed. 
Despite  its  dominance  in  the  apocalypses,  it  was  probably  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  masses  of  the  people.  Probably  the  ordi- 
nary view  of  the  matter  is  essentially  correct;  probably  the 
Jews  of  the  first  century  were  eagerly  awaiting  an  earthly  king 
of  David's  line  who  should  deliver  them  from  Roman  rule. 

If,  however,  the  transcendent  conception  of  Messiahship 
which  is  found  in  the  apocalypses  was  not  the  only  conception 
held  by  pre-Christian  Judaism,  it  is  none  the  less  of  special 
interest,  and  will  repay  examination.  It  is  found  most  fully 
set  forth  in  the  "Similitudes"  of  1  Enoch,1  but  appears  also 
in  4  Ezra  and  in  2  Baruch. 

In  the  Similitudes,  the  heavenly  being,  who  is  to  appear 
at  the  end  of  the  age  and  be  the  instrument  of  God  in  judg- 
ment, is  usually  called  the  Elect  One,  Mine  Elect  One,  the 
Son  of  Man,  or  that  Son  of  Man.  He  is  also  called  the 
Righteous  One,  and  twice  he  is  called  Messiah  or  Anointed 
One  (xlviii.  10;  lii.  4).  This  latter  title  would  seem  to  connect 
him  with  the  expected  king  of  David's  line,  who  was  the 
Anointed  One  or  the  Messiah.  Lake  and  Jackson,  however, 
would  deny  all  connection.  The  heavenly  Son  of  Man,  they 
maintain,  was  never  in  pre-Christian  Judaism  identified  with 
the  expected  king  of  David's  line — that  is,  with  the  "Messiah" 
in  the  technical  sense — so  that  it  is  a  mistake  to  speak  of 
"Messianic"  passages  in  the  Book  of  Enoch.2  But  after 
all,  the  heavenly  figure  of  1  Enoch  is  represented  as  fulfilling 
much  the  same  functions  as  those  which  are  attributed  in  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  for  example,  to  the  Messiah.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  same  writer  as  expecting  two 
deliverers — one  the  Messiah  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  and 
the  other  the  Son  of  Man  of  1  Enoch.  On  the  whole,  there- 
fore, it  is  correct,  despite  the  protest  of  Lake  and  Jackson, 
to  speak  of  the  passages  in  1  Enoch  as  Messianic,  and  of 

*A11  parts  of  1  Enoch  are  now  usually  thought  to  be  of  pre-Chris- 
tian origin.  The  Similitudes  (chaps,  xxxvii-lxxi)  are  usually  dated 
in  the  first  century  before  Christ.  See  Charles,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  163-281; 
Schurer,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  268-290  (English  Translation,  Division  II,  vol.  iii, 
pp.  54-73). 

"Lake  and  Jackson,  The  Begiwnmg*  of  Christianity,  Part  I,  vol.  i,  1920, 
pp.  373f. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  187 

the  Son  of  Man  as  the  "Messiah."  In  4  Ezra  xii.  32,  more- 
over, the  transcendent  being,  who  is  set  forth  under  the  figure 
of  the  lion,  is  distinctly  identified  with  the  Messiah  "who  shall 
spring  from  the  seed  of  David."  Of  course,  the  late  date  of 
4  Ezra  may  be  insisted  upon,  and  it  may  be  maintained  that 
the  Davidic  descent  of  the  Messiah  in  4  Ezra  is  a  mere  tradi- 
tional detail,  without  organic  connection  with  the  rest  of  the 
picture.  But  it  is  significant  that  the  writer  did  feel  it  neces- 
sary to  retain  the  detail.  His  doing  so  proves  at  least  that 
the  heavenly  being  of  the  apocalypses  was  not  always  thought 
of  as  distinct  from  the  promised  king  of  David's  line.  All 
that  can  be  granted  to  Lake  and  Jackson  is  that  the  future 
Deliverer  was  thought  of  in  pre-Christian  Judaism  in  widely 
diverse  ways,  and  that  there  was  often  no  effort  to  bring  the 
different  representations  into  harmony.  But  it  is  correct  to 
speak  of  all  the  representations  as  "Messianic."  For  the 
coming  Deliverer  in  all  cases  (despite  the  variety  of  the  ex- 
pectations) was  intended  to  satisfy  at  least  the  same  religious 
needs. 

The  title  "Son  of  Man,"  which  is  used  frequently  in  the 
Similitudes,  has  given  rise  to  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  espe- 
cially because  of  its  employment  in  the  Gospels  as  a  self- 
designation  of  Jesus.  It  has  been  maintained  by  some  scholars 
that  "Son  of  Man"  never  could  have  been  a  Messianic  title,  since 
the  phrase  in  Aramaic  idiom  means  simply  "man."  Thus  the 
Greek  phrase,  "the  Son  of  Man,"  in  the  Gospels  would  merely 
be  an  over-literal  translation  of  an  Aramaic  phrase  which 
meant  simply  "the  man,"  and  the  use  of  "Son  of  Man"  as  a 
title  would  not  extend  back  of  the  time  when  the  tradition 
about  the  words  of  Jesus  passed  over  into  Greek.  But  in 
recent  years  this  extreme  position  has  for  the  most  part  been 
abandoned.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that 
the  Aramaic  phrase  from  which  the  phrase  "the  Son  of  Man" 
in  the  Gospels  is  derived  was  simply  the  ordinary  phrase  mean- 
ing simply  "the  man."  Opposed  to  this  view  is  to  be  put,  for 
example,  the  weighty  opinion  of  Dalman.1  In  the  second 
place,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  linguistic  question  is  not  so 
important  as  was  formerly  supposed.  For  even  if  "the  son 

1  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  i,  1898,  pp.  191-197  (English  Translation, 
The  Words  of  Jesus,  i,  1902,  pp.  234-241);  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  1913, 
pp.  13,  14. 


188  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  man"  in  Aramaic  meant  simply  "the  man,"  it  might  still  be 
a  title.  The  commonest  noun  may  sometimes  become  a  title, 
and  a  title  of  highly  specialized  significance.  For  example, 
the  word  "day"  is  a  very  common  word,  but  "The  Day"  in 
certain  connections,  like  the  German,  "Der  Tag,"  altogether 
without  the  help  of  any  adjectives,  comes  to  designate  one 
particular  day.  So  "the  Man"  or  "that  Man"  could  become 
a  very  lofty  title,  especially  if  it  refers  to  some  definite  scene 
in  which  He  who  is  the  "Man"  par  excellence  is  described. 

In  the  Similitudes,  such  is  actually  the  case;  the  phrase 
"Son  of  Man,"  whatever  be  its  exact  meaning,  plainly  refers 
to  the  "one  like  unto  a  son  of  man"  who  in  Daniel  vii.  13  ap- 
pears in  the  presence  of  "the  Ancient  of  Days."  This  refer- 
ence is  made  perfectly  plain  at  the  first  mention  of  the  Son 
of  Man  (1  Enoch  xlvi.  1,  2),  where  the  same  scene  is  evidently 
described  as  the  scene  of  Dan.  vii.  13.  The  "Son  of  Man" 
is  not  introduced  abruptly,  but  is  first  described  as  a  "being 
whose  countenance  had  the  appearance  of  a  man,"  and  is  then 
referred  to  in  the  Similitudes  not  only  as  "the  Son  of  Man," 
but  also  as  "that  Son  of  Man."  Charles  and  others  suppose, 
indeed,  that  the  Ethiopic  word  translated  "that"  is  merely 
a  somewhat  false  representation,  in  the  Ethiopic  translation, 
of  the  Greek  definite  article,  so  that  the  Greek  form  of  the 
book  from  which  the  extant  Ethiopic  was  taken  had  every- 
where "the  Son  of  Man,"  and  nowhere  "that  Son  of  Man." 
The  question  is  perhaps  not  of  very  great  importance.  In 
any  case,  the  phrase  "son  of  man"  derives  its  special  signifi- 
cance from  the  reference  to  the  scene  of  Dan.  vii.  13.  Not  any 
ordinary  "man"  or  "son  of  man"  is  meant,  but  the  mysterious 
figure  who  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  was  brought 
near  to  the  Ancient  of  Days. 

The  Son  of  Man,  or  the  Elect  One,  in  the  Similitudes, 
appears  clothed  with  the  loftiest  attributes.  He  existed  be- 
fore the  creation  of  the  world  (xlviii.  3,  6).  When  he  finally 
appears,  it  is  to  sit  in  glory  upon  the  throne  of  God  (li.  3, 
etc.),  and  judge  not  only  the  inhabitants  of  earth  but  also  the 
fallen  angels  (Iv.  4).  For  the  purposes  of  judgment  he  is 
endued  with  righteousness  and  wisdom.  He  is  concerned,  more- 
over, not  only  with  the  judgment  but  also  with  the  execution  of 
the  judgment;  he  causes  "the  sinners  to  pass  away  and  be 
destroyed  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth"  (Ixix.  27).  For  the 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  189 

righteous,  on  the  other  hand,  the  judgment  results  in  blessing 
and  in  communion  with  the  Son  of  Man.  "And  the  righteous 
and  elect  shall  be  saved  in  that  day,  and  they  shall  never 
thenceforward  see  the  face  of  the  sinners  and  the  unrighteous. 
And  the  Lord  of  Spirits  will  abide  over  them,  and  with  that  Son 
of  Man  shall  they  eat  and  lie  down  and  rise  up  for  ever  and 
ever"  (Ixii.  13,  14). 

The  entire  representation  in  the  Similitudes  is  super- 
natural ;  the  Son  of  Man  is  a  heavenly  figure  who  appears  sud- 
denly in  the  full  blaze  of  his  glory.  Yet  the  connection  with 
earth  is  not  altogether  broken  off.  It  is  upon  a  glorified 
earth  that  the  righteous  are  to  dwell.  Indeed,  despite  the 
cosmic  extent  of  the  drama,  the  prerogatives  of  Israel  are 
preserved;  the  Gentile  rulers  are  no  doubt  referred  to  in 
"the  Kings  and  the  Mighty"  who  are  to  suffer  punishment 
because  of  their  former  oppression  of  "the  elect."  On  the 
other  hand,  mere  connection  with  Israel  is  not  the  only  ground 
for  a  man's  acceptance  by  the  Son  of  Man;  the  judgment  will 
be  based  upon  a  real  understanding  of  the  secrets  of  individual 
lives. 

In  4  Ezra  vii.  26-31,  the  rule  of  the  Messiah  is  represented 
as  distinctly  temporary.  The  Messiah  will  rejoice  the  living 
for  four  hundred  years ;  then,  together  with  all  human  beings, 
he  will  die;  then  after  the  world  has  returned  to  primeval 
silence  for  seven  days,  the  new  age,  with  the  final  resurrection, 
will  be  ushereo!  in.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  repre- 
sentation harmonizes  with  what  is  said  elsewhere  in  4  Ezra 
about  the  Messiah,  indeed  whether  even  in  this  passage  the 
representation  is  thoroughly  consistent.  Box,  for  example, 
thinks  that  there  are  contradictions  here,  which  are  to  be 
explained  by  the  composite  nature  of  the  book  and  by  the  work 
of  a  redactor.  But  at  any  rate  the  result,  in  the  completed 
book,  is  clear.  The  Messiah  is  to  die,  like  all  the  men  who 
are  upon  the  earth,  and  is  not  connected  with  the  new  age. 
This  death  of  the  Messiah  is  as  far  as  possible  from  possessing 
any  significance  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Certainly  it  is 
not  brought  into  any  connection  with  the  problem  of  sin, 
which,  as  has  been  observed  above,  engages  the  special  atten- 
tion of  the  writer  of  4  Ezra.  "It  is  important  to  observe 
how  the  Jewish  faith  knew  of  a  Saviour  for  external  ills,  but 
not  for  sin  and  condemnation ;  and  how  the  Christ  is  able  only 


190  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

to  create  a  brief  earthly  joy,  which  passes  away  with  the  de- 
struction of  the  world."  l 

In  the  "Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,"  2  although 
Bruckner  is  no  doubt  right  in  saying  that  the  Messiah  here 
as  well  as  in  1  Enoch  is  a  supernatural  figure,  the  connection 
of  the  Messiah  with  the  tribe  of  Levi  introduces  the  reader 
into  a  somewhat  different  circle  of  ideas.  The  difference 
becomes  more  marked  in  the  "Psalms  of  Solomon,"  }  where 
the  Messiah  is  a  king  of  David's  line.  It  is  no  doubt  true 
that  even  here  the  Messiah  is  no  ordinary  human  being;  he  de- 
stroys his  enemies,  not  by  the  weapons  of  warfare  and  not  by 
the  help  of  Israelitish  armies,  but  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth. 
Yet  the  local,  earthly  character  of  the  Messiah's  reign — what 
may  even  be  called,  perhaps,  its  political  character — is  more 
clearly  marked  than  in  the  apocalypses.  Also  there  is  stronger 
emphasis  upon  the  ethical  qualities  of  the  Messianic  king; 
the  righteousness  of  his  people  is  celebrated  in  lofty  terms, 
which,  however,  do  not  exclude  a  strong  element  of  Jewish  and 
Pharisaic  particularism. 

No  complete  exposition  of  the  Jewish  belief  about  the 
Messiah  has  here  been  attempted.  But  enough  has  perhaps 
been  said  to  indicate  at  least  some  features  of  the  Messianic 
expectation  in  the  period  just  preceding  the  time  of  Paul. 
Evidently,  in  certain  circles  at  least,  the  Messianic  hope  was 
transcendent,  individualistic,  and  universalistic.  The  scene 
of  Messiah's  kingdom  was  not  always  thought  of  merely  as 
the  earthly  Jerusalem ;  at  least  the  drama  by  which  that  king- 
dom is  ushered  in  was  thought  of  as  taking  place  either  in 
heaven  or  upon  an  earth  which  has  been  totally  transformed. 
With  this  transcendent  representation  went  naturally  a  ten- 
dency towards  individualism.  Not  merely  nations  were  to  be 
judged,  but  also  the  secrets  of  the  individual  life;  and  individ- 
uals were  to  have  a  part  in  the  final  blessing  or  the  final  woe. 
Of  course,  for  those  who  should  die  before  the  end  of  the  age, 
this  participation  in  the  final  blessedness  or  the  final  woe 
would  be  possible  only  by  a  resurrection.  And  the  doctrine 
of  resurrection,  especially  for  the  righteous,  is  in  the  apoca- 

aVolz,  Jiidische  Eschatologie  von  Daniel  bis  Akiba,  1903,  pp.  202f. 

aSee  Charles,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  282-367;  Schiirer,  op.  tit.,  iii,  pp.  339-356 
(English  Translation,  Division  II,  vol.  iii,  pp.  114-124). 

*  See  Gray,  in  Charles,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  625-652;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp. 
205-212  (English  Translation,  Division  II,  vol.  iii,  pp.  17-23). 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  191 

lypses  clearly  marked.  In  2  Baruch,  indeed,  there  is  an  in- 
teresting discussion  of  the  relation  between  the  resurrection 
state  and  the  present  condition  of  man;  the  righteous  will 
first  rise  in  their  old  bodies,  but  afterwards  will  be  trans- 
formed (2  Baruch  xlix-li).  Finally,  the  apocalypses  exhibit 
a  tendency  toward  universalism.  The  coming  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  is  regarded  as  an  event  of  cosmic  significance.  The 
Gentiles  are  even  sometimes  said  to  share  in  the  blessing.  But 
they  are  to  share  in  the  blessing  only  by  subordination  to  the 
people  of  God. 

Despite  the  importance  of  the  later  period,  it  is  inter- 
esting to  observe  that  all  the  essential  features  of  later  Jew- 
ish eschatology  have  their  roots  in  the  canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  In  the  first  place,  the  transcendence  of 
the  later*  representation  has  an  old  Testament  basis.  In 
Isaiah  ix  and  xi  the  Messiah  appears  clearly  as  a  supernatural 
figure,  and  in  Isaiah  Ixv.  17  there  is  a  prophecy  of  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth.  The  heavenly  "Son  of  Man"  is  derived  from 
Dan.  vii.  13,  and  the  individualistic  interpretation  of  that 
passage,  which  makes  the  Son  of  Man,  despite  verse  18,  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  collective  symbol  for  the  people  of 
Israel,  is  to-day  in  certain  quarters  coming  to  its  rights. 
Not  only  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  but  also  in  the  apocalypses, 
the  Old  Testament  language  is  used  again  and  again  to  describe 
the  heavenly  Messiah.  There  is,  in  the  second  place,  an  Old 
Testament  basis  for  the  individualism  of  the  later  represen- 
tation. The  doctrine  of  resurrection,  with  its  consequences 
for  an  individualistic  hope,  appears  in  Daniel.  And,  finally, 
the  universalism  of  the  apocalypses  does  not  transcend  that 
of  the  great  Old  Testament  prophets.  In  the  prophets  also, 
the  nations  are  to  come  under  the  judgment  of  God  and  are 
to  share  in  some  sort  in  the  blessings  of  Israel. 

If,  therefore,  the  apostle  Paul  before  his  conversion  be- 
lieved in  a  heavenly  Messiah,  supernatural  in  origin  and  in 
function,  he  was  not  really  unfaithful  to  the  Old  Testament. 

But  was  his  pre-Christian  notion  of  the  Messiah  really 
the  source  of  the  Christology  of  the  Epistles?  Such  is  the 
contention  of  Wrede  and  Bruckner.  Wrede  and  Bruckner  be- 
lieve that  the  lofty  Christology  of  Paul,  inexplicable  if  it  was 
derived  from  the  man  Jesus,  may  be  accounted  for  if  it  was 
merely  the  pre-Christian  conception  of  the  Messiah  brought 


192  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

into  loose  connection  with  the  prophet  of  Nazareth.  This 
hypothesis  must  now  be  examined. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  investigation,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  Paul  before  his  conversion  held  the  apocalyptic  view 
of  the  Messiah.  It  might,  indeed,  even  be  questioned 
whether  he  was  particularly  interested  in  the  Messianic  hope 
at  all.  If  Baldensperger  is  correct  in  saying  that  the  Mes- 
sianic dogma  was  in  some  sort  a  substitute  for  the  Law,  and 
the  Law  a  substitute  for  the  Messianic  dogma,  so  that  finally 
rabbinical  interest  in  the  Law  tended  to  dampen  interest  in 
the  Messiah,1  then  the  pre-Christian  life  of  Paul  was  pre- 
sumably not  dominated  by  Messianic  expectations.  For  Paul 
himself,  as  Balden sperger  observes,2  does  not,  in  speaking  of 
his  pre-Christian  life,  reckon  himself  with  the  Messianists.  He 
reckons  himself,  rather,  with  those  who  were  zealous  for  the 
Law.  Such  considerations  are  interesting.  But  their  impor- 
tance should  not  be  exaggerated.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  whole  New  Testament  the 
doctrine  of  the  Messiah  was  firmly  established  in  the  Judaism 
of  Paul's  day.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  Paul  the  Pharisee 
dissented  from  the  orthodox  belief.  In  all  probability,  there- 
fore, Paul  before  his  conversion  did  hold  some  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah. 

It  is  not  so  certain,  however,  that  the  pre-conversion 
doctrine  of  Paul  presented  a  transcendent  Messiah  like  the 
heavenly  Son  of  Man  of  the  apocalypses.  Certainly  there  is 
in  the  Pauline  Epistles  no  evidence  whatever  of  literary  de- 
pendence upon  the  apocalyptic  descriptions  of  the  Messiah. 
The  characteristic  titles  of  the  Messiah  which  appear  in  the 
Similitudes  of  Enoch,  for  example,  are  conspicuously  absent 
from  Paul.  Paul  never  uses  the  title  "Son  of  Man"  or  "Elect 
One"  or  "Righteous  One"  in  speaking  of  Christ.  And  in  the 
apocalypses,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Pauline  terminology  is 
almost  equally  unknown.  The  apocalypses,  at  least  1  Enoch, 
use  the  title  "Messiah"  only  very  seldom,  and  the  character- 
istic Pauline  title,  "Lord,"  never  at  all.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  the  Pauline  Christology  was  not  derived  from  the 
particular  apocalypses  that  are  still  extant.  All  that  can 

1  Baldensperger,    Die    Messianisch-apocalyptischen    Hoffnungen    de»    Ju- 
dentums,  3te  Aufl.,  1903,  pp.  88,  207f.,  216f. 
a  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  216f. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  193 

possibly  be  maintained  is  that  it  was  derived  from  apocalypses 
which  have  been  lost,  or  from  an  apocalyptic  oral  tradition. 
But  dependence  upon  lost  sources,  direct  comparison  not  being 
possible,  is  always  very  difficult  to  establish. 

Thus  the  terminology  of  the  Epistles  and  of  the  apoca- 
lypses is  rather  unfavorable  to  the  view  which  attributes  to 
the  youthful  Paul  the  apocalyptic  doctrine  of  the  Messiah. 
No  literary  relation  can  be  established  between  the  Epistles 
and  the  extant  apocalypses.  But  will  general  considerations 
serve  to  supply  the  lack  of  direct  evidence  of  dependence? 
On  the  whole,  the  reverse  is  the  case.  General  considerations 
as  to  the  pre-Christian  opinions  of  Paul  point  rather  to  a 
less  transcendent  and  more  political  conception  than  the  con- 
ception which  is  found  in  the  apocalypses.  No  doubt  the 
Messiah  whom  Paul  was  expecting  possessed  supernatural  at- 
tributes ;  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  expected  in  New 
Testament  times  that  the  Messiah  would  work  miracles.  But 
the  supernatural  attributes  of  the  Messiah  would  not  neces- 
sarily involve  a  conception  like  that  which  is  presented  in  the 
Similitudes  of  Enoch.  Possibly  it  is  rather  to  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon  that  the  historian  should  turn.  The  Psalms  of  Solo- 
mon were  a  typical  product  of  Pharisaism  in  its  nobler  aspects. 
Their  conception  of  the  Messiah,  therefore,  may  well  have  been 
that  of  the  pupil  of  Gamaliel.  And  the  Messiah  of  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon,  though  possessed  of  supernatural  power  and  wis- 
dom, is  thought  of  primarily  as  a  king  of  David's  line,  and  there 
is  no  thought  of  his  preexistence.  He  is  very  different  from 
the  Son  of  Man  of  1  Enoch. 

It  is,  therefore,  not  perfectly  clear  that  Paul  before  the 
conversion  believed  in  a  heavenly,  preexistent  Messiah  like  the 
Messiah  of  the  apocalypses.  There  is  some  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  was  the  Messiah,  not  of 
the  masses  of  the  people  and  not  of  the  orthodox  teachers,  but 
of  a  somewhat  limited  circle.  Did  Paul  belong  to  that  limited 
circle?  The  question  cannot  be  answered  with  any  certainty. 

The  importance  of  such  queries  must  not,  indeed,  be  ex- 
aggerated. It  is  not  being  maintained  here  that  Paul  before 
his  conversion  did  not  believe  in  the  Messiah  of  the  apoca- 
lypses ;  all  that  is  maintained  is  that  it  is  not  certain  that 
he  did.  Possibly  the  diffusion  of  apocalyptic  ideas  in  pre- 
Christian  Judaism  was  much  wider  than  is  sometimes  sup- 


194  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

posed ;  possibly  the  youthful  Paul  did  come  under  the  influence 
of  such  ideas.  But  Wrede  and  Bruckner  are  going  too  far  if 
they  assert  that  Paul  must  necessarily  have  come  under  such 
influences.  The  truth  is  that  the  pre-Christian  life  of  Paul 
is  shrouded  in  the  profoundest  obscurity.  Almost  the  only 
definite  piece  of  information  is  what  Paul  himself  tells  us — that 
he  was  zealous  for  the  Law.  He  says  nothing  about  his  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah.  The  utmost  caution  is  therefore  in 
place.  Bruckner  is  going  much  further  than  the  sources  will 
warrant  when  he  makes  Paul  before  his  conversion  a  devotee  of 
the  apocalyptic  Messiah,  and  bases  upon  this  hypothesis  an 
elaborate  theory  as  to  the  genesis  of  the  Pauline  Christology. 

But  even  if  Paul  before  his  conversion  was  a  devotee  of 
the  apocalyptic  Messiah,  the  genesis  of  the  Pauline  Christology 
has  not  yet  been  explained.  For  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  is 
different  in  important  respects  from  the  Christ  of  the  Epistles. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  in  the  apocalypses  no  doc- 
trine of  an  activity  of  the  Messiah  in  creation,  like  that 
which  appears  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6;  Col.  i.  16.  The  Messiah  of 
the  apocalypses  is  preexistent,  but  He  is  not  thought  of  as  be- 
ing associated  with  God  in  the  creation  of  the  world.  This 
difference  may  seem  to  be  only  a  difference  in  detail ;  but  it  is  a 
difference  in  detail  which  concerns  just  that  part  of  the  Paul- 
ine Christology  which  would  seem  to  be  most  similar  to  the 
apocalyptic  doctrine.  It  is  the  Pauline  conception  of  the 
preexistent  Christ,  as  distinguished  from  the  incarnate  or  the 
risen  Christ,  which  Wrede  and  Bruckner  find  it  easiest  to  con- 
nect with  the  apocalypses.  But  even  in  the  preexistent  period 
the  Christ  of  Paul  is  different  from  the  apocalyptic  Messiah, 
because  the  Christ  of  Paul,  unlike  the  apocalyptic  Messiah, 
has  an  active  part  in  the  creation  of  the  world. 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  in  the  apocalypses  no  trace 
of  the  warm,  personal  relation  which  exists  between  the  be- 
liever and  the  Pauline  Christ.1  The  Messiah  of  the  apoca- 
lypses is  hidden  in  heaven.  He  is  revealed  only  as  a  great 
mystery,  and  only  to  favored  men  such  as  Enoch.  Even  after 
the  judgment,  although  the  righteous  are  to  be  in  company 
with  Him,  there  is  no  such  account  of  His  person  as  would 
make  conceivable  a  living,  personal  relationship  with  Him. 
The  heavenly  Messiah  of  the  apocalypses  is  a  lifeless  figure, 

1  Compare  especially  Olschewski,  Die    Wurzeln  der  paulinischen  Christ- 
olvgie,  1909. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  195 

clothed  in  unapproachable  light.  The  risen  Christ  of  Paul, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  a  person  whom  a  man  can  love;  indeed 
He  is  a  person  whom  as  a  matter  of  fact  Paul  did  love.  Whence 
was  derived  the  concrete,  personal  character  of  the  Christ  of 
Paul?  It  was  certainly  not  derived  from  the  Messiah  of  the 
apocalypses.  Whence  then  was  it  derived? 

The  natural  answer  would  be  that  it  was  derived  from 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  fact  that  the  risen  Christ  of  Paul  is 
not  merely  a  heavenly  figure  but  a  person  whom  a  man  can  love 
is  most  naturally  explained  by  supposing  that  Paul  attributed 
to  the  Messiah  all  the  concrete  traits  of  the  striking  per- 
sonality of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  this  supposition  is  ex- 
cluded by  W  rede's  hypothesis.  Indeed,  Wrede  supposes,  if 
Paul  had  come  into  such  close  contact  with  the  historical 
Jesus  as  to  have  in  his  mind  a  full  account  of  Jesus'  words  and 
deeds,  he  could  not  easily  have  attached  to  Him  the  super- 
natural attributes  of  the  heavenly  Son  of  Man ;  only  a  man  who 
stood  remote  from  the  real  Jesus  could  have  regarded  Jesus 
as  the  instrument  in  creation  and  the  final  judge  of  all  the 
world.  Thus  the  hypothesis  of  Wrede  and  Bruckner  faces  a 
quandary.  In  order  to  explain  the  supernatural  attributes 
of  the  Pauline  Christ,  Paul  has  to  be  placed  near  to  the  apoca- 
lypses and  far  from  the  historical  Jesus ;  whereas  in  order  to 
explain  the  warm,  personal  relation  between  Paul  and  his 
Christ,  Paul  would  have  to  be  placed  near  to  the  historical 
Jesus  and  far  from  the  apocalypses. 

This  quandary  could  be  avoided  only  by  deriving  the  warm, 
personal  relation  between  Paul  and  his  Christ  from  something 
other  than  the  character  of  the  historical  Jesus.  Wrede  and 
Bruckner  might  seek  to  derive  it  from  the  one  fact  of  the  cruci- 
fixion. All  that  Paul  really  derived  from  the  historical  Jesus, 
according  to  Wrede  and  Bruckner,  was  the  fact  that  the 
Messiah  had  come  to  earth  and  died.  But  that  one  fact,  it 
might  be  maintained,  was  sufficient  to  produce  the  fervent 
Christ-religion  of  Paul.  For  Paul  interpreted  the  death  of 
the  Messiah  as  a  death  suffered  for  the  sins  of  others.  Such 
a  death  involved  self-sacrifice;  it  must  have  been  an  act  of 
love.  Hence  the  beneficiaries  were  grateful;  hence  the  warm, 
personal  relationship  of  Paul  to  the  one  who  had  loved  him 
and  given  Himself  for  him.1 

'Compare    Bruckner,    Die    Entstehung    der    paulinischen    Christologie. 
1903,  p.   237. 


196  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

But  how  did  the  death  of  Jesus  ever  come  to  be  interpreted 
by  Paul  as  a  vicarious  death  of  the  Messiah?  The  natural 
answer  would  be  that  it  was  because  of  something  that  Jesus 
had  said  or  because  of  an  impression  derived  from  His  char- 
acter. That  answer  is  excluded  by  Wrede's  hypothesis.  How 
then  did  Paul  come  to  regard  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  vicarious 
death  of  the  Messiah?  It  could  only  have  been  because  Paul 
already  had  a  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  death  of  the  Messiah 
before  his  conversion.  But  nothing  is  more  unlikely.  There 
is  in  late  pre-Christian  Jewish  literature  not  a  trace  of  such 
a  doctrine.1  The  Messiah  in  4  Ezra  is  represented,  indeed,  as 
dying,  but  His  death  is  of  benefit  to  no  one.  He  dies,  along  with 
all  the  inhabitants  of  earth,  simply  in  order  to  make  way  for 
the  new  world.2  In  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  the 
Jew  Trypho  is  represented  as  admitting  that  the  Messiah  was 
to  suffer.  But  the  suffering  is  not  represented  as  vicarious. 
And  since  the  Dialogue  was  written  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  after  Christ,  the  isolated  testimony  of  Trypho  cannot 
be  used  as  a  witness  to  first-century  conditions.  It  is  perfectly 
possible,  as  Schiirer  suggested,  that  certain  Jews  of  the  sec- 
ond century  were  only  led  to  concede  the  suffering  of  the  Mes- 
siah in  the  light  of  the  Scriptural  arguments  advanced  by  the 
Christians.  The  rabbinical  evidence  as  to  sufferings  of  the 
Messiah  is  also  too  late  to  be  used  in  reconstructing  the  pre- 
Christian  environment  of  Paul.  And  of  real  evidence  from  the 
period  just  before  Paul's  day  there  is  none.  In  4  Maccabees 
vi.  28,  29,  indeed  (less  clearly  in  xvii.  21,  22),  the  blood  of  the 
righteous  is  represented  as  bringing  purification  for  the  people. 
The  dying  martyr  Eleazar  is  represented  as  praying:3  "Be 
merciful  unto  thy  people,  and  let  our  punishment  be  a  satis- 
faction in  their  behalf.  Make  my  blood  their  purification,  and 
take  my  soul  to  ransom  their  souls."  This  passage,  however,  is 
entirely  isolated.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  vicari- 
ous suffering  of  the  righteous  was  anything  like  an  estab- 
lished doctrine  in  the  Judaism  of  Paul's  day,  and  in  par- 
ticular there  is  no  evidence  that  in  pre-Christian  Judaism  the 
idea  of  vicarious  suffering  was  applied  to  the  Messiah.  Un- 

1  See  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  648-651  (English  Translation,  Division  II, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  184-187). 

3  It  will  be  remembered,  moreover,  that  4  Ezra,  at  least  in  its  completed 
form,  dates  from  long  after  the  time  of  Paul. 

•Townshend,  in  Charles,  op,  cit.,  ii,  p.  674. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  197 

doubtedly  Isaiah  liii  might  have  formed  a  basis  for  such  an 
application ;  it  may  even  seem  surprising  that  that  glorious 
passage  was  not  more  influential.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Judaism  was  moving  in  a  very  different  direction;  the  later 
doctrine  of  the  Messiah  had  absolutely  no  place  for  a  vicarious 
death  or  for  vicarious  suffering.  All  the  sources  are  here 
in  agreement.  Neither  in  the  apocalypses  nor  in  what  is  pre- 
supposed in  the  New  Testament  about  Jewish  belief  is  there  any 
trace  of  a  vicarious  death  of  the  Messiah.  Indeed,  there  is 
abundant  evidence  that  such  an  idea  was  extremely  repulsive 
to  the  Jewish  mind.  The  Cross  was  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling- 
block.1 

Thus  the  warm,  personal  relation  of  love  and  gratitude 
which  Paul  sustains  to  the  risen  Christ  is  entirely  unexplained 
by  anything  in  his  Jewish  environment.  It  is  not  explained  by 
the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah;  it  is  not  explained  by  re- 
flection upon  the  vicarious  death  of  the  Messiah.  For  the 
Messiah  in  Jewish  expectation  was  not  to  suffer  a  vicarious 
death.  Such  a  relation  of  love  and  gratitude  could  be  sus- 
tained only  toward  a  living  person.  It  could  be  sustained 
toward  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  if  Jesus  continued  to  live  in  glory, 
but  it  could  not  be  sustained  toward  the  Messiah  of  the  apoca- 
lypses. 

The  third  difference  between  the  Pauline  Christ  and  the 
Messiah  of  the  apocalypses  concerns  the  very  center  of  the 
Pauline  conception — there  is  in  the  apocalypses  no  doctrine 

1B.  W.  Bacon  (Jesus  and  Paul,  1921,  pp.  45-49)  seeks  to  bridge  the 
gulf  between  Jesus  and  Paul  by  supposing  that  Jesus  himself,  somewhat 
like  the  Maccabean  hero,  finally  attained,  after  the  failure  of  His  original 
program  and  at  the  very  close  of  His  life,  the  conception  that  His  ap- 
proaching death  was  to  be  in  some  sort  an  expiation  for  His  people. 
But  the  idea  of  expiation  which  Bacon  attributes  to  Jesus  is  no  doubt 
very  different  from  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Cross  of  Christ.  The 
gulf  between  Jesus  and  Paul  is  therefore  not  really  bridged.  Moreover, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  Bacon's  hypothesis  of  successive  stages  in  the  ex- 
perience of  Jesus,  culminating  in  the  idea  of  expiation  attained  at  the 
last  supper,  has  really  helped  at  all  to  solve  the  problem  presented  to 
every  historian  who  proceeds  upon  naturalistic  presuppositions  by  Jesus' 
lofty  claims.  At  least,  however,  this  latest  investigator  of  the  problem 
of  "Jesus  and  Paul"  has  betrayed  a  salutary  consciousness  of  the  fact 
that  the  Pauline  conception  of  Jesus'  redemptive  work  is  inexplicable 
unless  it  find  some  justification  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  Himself.  Only, 
the  justification  which  Bacon  himself  has  found — particularly  his  account 
of  the  way  in  which  the  idea  of  expiation  is  supposed  to  have  arisen  in 
Jesus'  mind — is  entirely  inadequate. 


198  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah.  In  Paul,  the  divinity  of 
Christ  is  presupposed  on  every  page.  The  word  "divinity"  is 
indeed  often  being  abused;  in  modern  pantheizing  liberalism, 
it  means  absolutely  nothing.  But  the  divinity  of  Christ  in 
the  Pauline  Epistles  is  to  be  understood  in  the  highest  pos- 
sible sense.  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  is 
not  dependent  upon  individual  passages ;  it  does  not  depend 
upon  the  question  whether  in  Rom.  ix.  5  Paul  applies  the  term 
"God"  to  Christ.  Certainly  he  does  so  by  any  natural  inter- 
pretation of  his  words.  But  what  is  far  more  important  is 
that  the  term  "Lord"  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  character- 
istic Pauline  name  of  Christ,  is  every  whit  as  much  a  desig- 
nation of  deity  as  is  the  term  "God."  Everywhere  in  the 
Epistles,  moreover,  the  attitude  of  Paul  toward  Christ  is  not 
merely  the  attitude  of  man  to  man,  or  scholar  to  master;  it 
is  the  attitude  of  man  toward  God. 

Such  an  attitude  is  absent  from  the  apocalyptic  repre- 
sentation of  the  Messiah.  For  example,  the  way  in  which  God 
and  Christ  are  linked  together  regularly  at  the  beginnings  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles — God  our  father  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  2 — this  can  find  no  real  parallel  in  1  Enoch.  The 
isolated  passages  (1  Enoch  xlix.  10;  Ixx.  1)  where  in  1  Enoch 
the  Lord  of  Spirits  and  the  Son  of  Man  or  the  Elect  One  are 
linked  together  by  the  word  "and,"  do  not  begin  to  approach 
the  height  of  the  Pauline  conception.  It  is  not  surprising 
and  not  particularly  significant  that  the  wicked  are  desig- 
nated in  one  passage  as  those  who  have  "denied  the  Lord  of 
Spirits  and  His  anointed"  (1  Enoch  xlix.  10).  Such  an  ex- 
pression would  be  natural  even  if  the  Anointed  One  were,  for 
example,  merely  an  earthly  king  of  David's  line.  What  is 
characteristic  of  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  God  the 
Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  not  merely  united  by 
the  conjunction  "and"  in  isolated  passages — that  might  hap- 
pen even  if  they  belonged  to  different  spheres  of  being — but 
are  united  regularly  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  are  just 
as  regularly  separated  from  all  other  beings  except  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Moreover,  God  and  Christ,  in  Paul,  have  attributed 
to  them  the  same  functions.  Grace  and  peace,  for  example, 

*See    Warfield,    "  'God    our    Father    and    the    Lord    Jesus    Christ,'"    in 
Princeton  Theological  Review,  xv,  1917,  pp.  1-20. 
•  Warfield,  loc.  tit. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  199 

come  equally  from  both.  Such  a  representation  would  be  quite 
incongruous  in  1  Enoch.  Equally  incongruous  in  1  Enoch 
would  be  the  Pauline  separation  of  the  Christ  from  ordinary 
humanity  and  from  angels.  The  author  of  1  Enoch  could  hardly 
have  said,  "Not  from  men  nor  through  a  man  but  through  the 
Elect  One  and  the  Lord  of  Spirits,"  as  Paul  says,  "Not  from 
men  nor  through  a  man  but  through  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the 
Father  who  raised  him  from  the  dead"  (Gal.  i.  1).  On  the  other 
hand,  the  way  in  which  1  Enoch  includes  the  Elect  One  in  the 
middle  of  a  long  list  of  beings  who  praise  the  Lord  of  Spirits 
(1  Enoch  Ixi.  10,  11)  would  be  absolutely  inconceivable  in 
Paul. 

This  stupendous  difference  is  established  not  by  isolated 
passages,  but  by  every  page  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  Paul- 
ine Christ  is  exalted  to  an  infinite  height  above  the  Messiah 
of  the  apocalypses.  How  did  He  reach  this  height?  Was  it  be- 
cause He  was  identified  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth?  But  that 
identification,  if  Jesus  of  Nazareth  were  a  mere  man,  would 
have  dragged  Him  down  rather  than  lifted  Him  up.  There  lies 
the  unsolved  problem.  Even  if  Paul  before  his  conversion  be- 
lieved in  the  heavenly  Messiah  of  the  apocalypses,  he  had  to 
exalt  that  Messiah  far  beyond  all  that  had  ever  been  attributed 
to  Him  in  the  boldest  visions  of  the  Jewish  seers,  before  he 
could  produce  the  Christ  of  the  Epistles.  Yet  the  only  new 
thing  that  had  entered  Paul's  life  was  identification  of  the 
Messiah  with  Jesus.  Why  did  that  identification  lift  the 
Messiah  to  the  throne  of  God?  Who  was  this  Jesus,  who  by  His 
identification  with  the  Messiah,  lifted  the  Messiah  even  far 
above  men's  wildest  dreams? 

Thus  the  Messianic  doctrine  of  the  apocalypses  is  an  in- 
sufficient basis  for  the  Pauline  Christology.  Its  insufficiency 
is  admitted  by  Hans  Windisch.1  But  Windisch  seeks  to  sup- 
ply what  is  lacking  in  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  by  appealing  to 
the  Jewish  doctrine  of  "Wisdom."  The  apocalyptic  doctrine 
of  the  Messiah,  Windisch  admits,  will  not  explain  the  origin  of 
the  Pauline  Christology ;  for  example,  it  will  not  explain  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  activity  of  Christ  in  creation.  But  "Wisdom" 
is  thought  to  supply  the  lack. 

In  Prov.  viii,  "wisdom"  is  celebrated  in  lofty  terms,  and 

1  "Die   gottliche   Weisheit   der  Juden   und   die   paulinische   Christologie," 
in  Neutestamentliche  Studien  Oeorg  Heinrici  dargebracht,  1914,  pp.  220-234. 


200  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

is  said  to  have  existed  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  "Wis- 
dom" is  here  boldly  personified  in  a  poetic  way.  But  she  is 
not  regarded  as  a  real  person  separate  from  God.  In  later 
books,  however,  notably  in  the  Alexandrian  "Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon," the  personification  is  developed  until  it  seems  to  in- 
volve actual  personality.  Wisdom  seems  to  be  regarded  as  an 
"hypostasis,"  a  figure  in  some  sort  distinct  from  God.  This 
hypostasis,  Windisch  believes,  was  identified  by  Paul  with 
Christ,  and  the  result  was  the  Pauline  Christology. 

The  figure  of  Wisdom,  Windisch  believes,  will  supply  two 
elements  in  the  Pauline  Christ-religion  which  are  lacking  in 
the  Messiah  of  the  apocalypses.  In  the  first  place,  it  will 
account  for  the  Pauline  notion  that  Christ  was  active  in 
creation,  since  Wisdom  in  Jewish  belief  is  repeatedly  repre- 
sented as  the  assessor  or  even  the  instrument  of  the  Creator. 
In  the  second  place,  it  will  account  for  the  intimate  relation 
between  Paul  and  his  Christ,  since  Wisdom  is  represented  in 
the  "Wisdom  of  Solomon"  as  entering  into  the  wise  man,  and 
the  wise  man  seems  to  be  represented  in  Proverbs  viii  and  in 
Ecclesiasticus  as  the  mouthpiece  of  Wisdom.1 

But  when  was  the  identification  of  the  Messiah  with  Wisdom 
accomplished?  Was  it  accomplished  by  Paul  himself  after 
his  conversion?  Or  was  it  received  by  Paul  from  pre-Chris- 
tian Jewish  doctrine?  If  it  was  accomplished  by  Paul  him- 
self after  his  conversion,  then  absolutely  no  progress  has 
been  made  toward  the  explanation  of  the  Pauline  Christology. 
How  did  Paul  come  to  identify  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
divine  figure  of  Wisdom?  It  could  only  have  been  because 
Jesus  was  such  a  person  as  to  make  the  identification  natural. 
But  that  supposition  is  of  course  excluded  by  the  naturalistic 
principles  with  which  Windisch  is  operating.  The  identifica- 
tion of  Jesus  with  Wisdom  at  or  after  the  conversion  is,  there- 
fore, absolutely  inexplicable;  in  substituting  Wisdom  for  the 
apocalyptic  Messiah  as  the  basis  of  the  Pauline  Christology, 
Windisch  has  destroyed  whatever  measure  of  plausibility  the 
theory  of  Wrede  and  Bruckner  possessed.  For  it  is  really 
essential  to  Wrede's  theory  that  Paul  before  his  conversion  had 
not  only  believed  in  the  existence  of  a  heavenly  being  like 
the  Son  of  Man  of  1  Enoch,  but  had  also  expected  that  heavenly 
being  to  appear.  Since  he  had  expected  the  heavenly  being  to 
1  Windisch,  op.  cit.,  p.  226. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  201 

appear,  it  might  seem  to  be  not  so  absolutely  inexplicable  that 
he  came  to  think  that  that  being  had  actually  appeared  in  the 
person  of  Jesus.  But  no  one  expected  Wisdom  to  appear, 
in  any  more  definite  way  than  by  the  entrance  which  she  had 
already  accomplished  into  the  hearts  of  wise  men.  The  thought 
of  an  incarnation  or  a  parousia  of  Wisdom  is  absolutely  for- 
eign to  Jewish  thought.  What  possible  reason  was  there,  then, 
for  Paul  to  think  that  Wisdom  actually  had  appeared  and 
would  finally  appear  again  in  the  person  of  Jesus? 

Thus  the  theory  of  Windisch  can  be  maintained  only  if  the 
identification  of  Wisdom  with  the  Messiah  was  accomplished 
not  by  Paul  after  the  conversion  but  by  pre-Christian  Judaism. 
If  Paul's  pre-Christian  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  already  con- 
tained vital  elements  drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom,  then 
and  then  only  might  it  be  held  that  the  Pauline  Christ,  with 
His  activity  in  creation  and  His  spiritual  indwelling1  in  the 
believer,  was  merely  the  pre-Christian  Messiah.  But  was  the 
pre-Christian  Messiah  ever  identified  with  the  hypostasis 
Wisdom?  Upon  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  question  depends 
the  whole  structure  of  Windisch's  theory.  But  Windisch 
passes  the  question  over  rather  lightly.  He  tries,  indeed,  to 
establish  certain  coincidences  between  the  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah  in  1  Enoch  and  in  the  Septuagint  translation  of  Micah 
v.  2  and  Ps.  ex.  3  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  descriptions  of 
Wisdom  on  the  other;  but  the  coincidences  apparently  amount 
to  nothing  except  the  ascription  of  preexistence  to  both  figures. 
But  the  fundamental  trouble  is  that  Windisch  has  an  entirely 
inadequate  conception  of  what  really  needs  to  be  proved. 
What  Windisch  really  needs  to  do  is  to  ascribe  to  the  pre- 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  two  elements — activity  in 
creation  and  spiritual  indwelling — which  in  the  extant  sources 
are  found  not  at  all  in  the  descriptions  of  the  Messiah  but 
only  in  the  descriptions  of  Wisdom.  Even  if  he  succeeded 
in  establishing  verbal  dependence  of  the  descriptions  of  the 
Messiah  upon  the  descriptions  of  Wisdom,  that  would  not 
really  prove  his  point  at  all.  Such  verbal  dependence  as  a 
matter  of  fact  has  not  been  established,  but  if  it  were  established 
it  would  be  without  significance.  It  would  be  far  more  com- 
pletely devoid  of  significance  than  is  the  similarity  between  the 
descriptions  of  the  heavenly  Messiah  as  judge  and  the  descrip- 
tions of  God  as  judge.  This  latter  similarity  may  be  signifi- 


202  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

cant,  when  taken  in  connection  with  other  evidence,  as  being 
a  true  anticipation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  deity  of 
Christ,  but  in  itself  it  will  hardly  be  held  (at  least  it  will 
hardly  be  held  by  Windisch)  to  establish  the  complete  personal 
identity,  in  Jewish  thinking,  of  the  Messiah  and  God,  so  that 
everything  that  is  said  about  God  in  pre-Christian  Jewish 
sources  can  henceforth  be  applied  to  the  Messiah.  Why  then 
should  similarity  in  language  between  the  descriptions  of 
the  Wisdom  of  God  as  preexistent  and  the  descriptions  of  the 
Messiah  as  preexistent  (even  if  that  similarity  existed)  estab- 
lish such  identity  between  the  Messiah  and  Wisdom  that  what 
is  attributed  to  Wisdom  (notably  spiritual  indwelling)  can 
henceforth  be  attributed  to  the  Messiah?  There  is  really  no 
evidence  whatever  for  supposing  that  the  Messiah  was  con- 
ceived of  in  pre-Christian  Judaism  either  as  being  active  in 
creation  or  as  dwelling  in  the  hearts  of  men.  Indeed,  with  re- 
gard to  the  latter  point,  there  is  decisive  evidence  of  the  con- 
trary. The  figure  of  the  Messiah  in  the  apocalypses  is  as  in- 
congruous as  anything  can  possibly  be  with  the  idea  of  spiritual 
indwelling.  Wisdom  is  conceived  of  as  dwelling  in  the  hearts 
of  men  only  because  Wisdom  in  Jewish  literature  is  not  really 
or  completely  a  concrete  person,  but  is  also  an  abstract  qual- 
ity. The  Messiah  is  a  concrete  person  and  hence  is  not  thought 
of  as  indwelling.  It  was  something  absolutely  without  pre- 
cedent, therefore,  when  Paul  regarded  his  Christ — who  is  noth- 
ing if  not  a  person,  and  a  person  who  may  be  loved — as  dwell- 
ing in  the  heart  of  the  believer. 

Objection  will  no  doubt  be  raised  against  this  treatment 
of  the  idea  of  personality.  Wisdom,  we  have  argued,  was 
never  in  Jewish  literature  regarded  consistently  as  a  person 
distinct  from  God;  whereas  the  Messiah  was  always  regarded 
as  a  person.  Against  this  argument  it  will  be  objected  that 
the  ancient  world  possessed  no  idea  of  personality  at  all, 
so  that  the  difference  between  Wisdom  and  the  Messiah  dis- 
appears. But  what  is  meant  by  the  objection?  If  it  is  meant 
only  that  the  ancient  world  possessed  no  definition  of  per- 
sonality, the  point  may  perhaps  be  conceded.  But  it  is  quite 
irrelevant.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  what  is  meant  is  that  the 
ancients  had  no  way  of  distinguishing  between  a  person  and  a 
mere  quality,  no  way  of  feeling  the  difference  even  if  the  differ- 
ence could  not  be  put  into  words,  then  an  emphatic  denial  is 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  205 

in  place.  Without  such  a  power  of  practical,  if  not  theoretical, 
distinction,  no  mental  or  moral  life  at  all,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  highly  developed  life  of  the  Hellenistic  age,  would  have 
been  possible.  It  is  highly  important,  therefore,  to  observe 
that  Wisdom  in  Jewish  literature  hardly  becomes  regarded 
as  a  person  in  any  consistent  way.  Undoubtedly  the  hypostas- 
izing  has  gone  to  considerable  lengths,  but  it  is  always  possible 
for  the  writers  to  hark  back  to  the  original  sense  of  the  word 
"wisdom" — to  play  at  least  upon  the  original  meaning.  Wis- 
dom seems  to  be  treated  not  merely  as  a  person  but  also  as  an 
attribute  of  God. 

Thus  Windisch  is  entirely  unjustified  when  he  uses  pas- 
sages which  represent  the  Messiah  as  possessing  "wisdom"  to 
prove  that  the  Messiah  was  regarded  as  identical  with  Wisdom. 
A  striking  example  of  this  mistake  is  found  in  the  treatment 
of  1  Enoch  xlix.  3,  where  it  is  said  that  in  the  Elect  One 
"dwells  the  spirit  of  wisdom,  and  the  spirit  which  gives  in- 
sight, and  the  spirit  of  understanding  and  of  might  and  the 
spirit  of  those  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  righteousness."  A 
still  more  striking  example  is  found  in  the  use  of  1  Cor.  i.  24, 
30,  where  Christ  crucified  is  called  the  power  of  God  and  the 
wisdom  of  God,  and  is  said  t'o  have  become  to  believers  wisdom 
and  justification  and  sanctification  and  redemption.  Windisch 
actually  uses  these  passages  as  evidence  for  the  application 
to  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  and  to  the  Pauline  Christ  of  the 
attributes  of  the  hypostasis  Wisdom.  Could  anything  be  more 
utterly  unwarranted?  The  inclusion  of  "wisdom"  in  a  consid- 
erable list  of  what  the  Son  of  Man  possesses  or  of  what  Christ 
means  to  the  believer,  far  from  proving  that  1  Enoch  or  Paul 
identified  the  Messiah  with  the  hypostasized  Wisdom,  rather 
proves,  if  proof  be  necessary,  that  they  did  not  make  the  identi- 
fication. It  is  a  very  different  thing  to  say  that  Christ  pos- 
sesses wisdom  (along  with  other  qualities)  or  brings  wisdom 
to  the  believer  (along  with  other  gifts)  from  saying  that  Christ 
is  so  identical  with  the  hypostasis  Wisdom  of  the  "wisdom 
literature"  that  what  is  there  said  about  Wisdom  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  Him.  Windisch  himself  observes,  very  significantly, 
that  Paul  could  not  actually  designate  Christ  as  "Wisdom" 
because  the  word  wisdom  is  of  feminine  gender  in  Greek.  The 
difference  of  gender  is  here  the  symbol  of  a  profound  differ- 
ence in  essential  character.  The  figure  of  Wisdom  in  Jewish 


204  Tf HE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

literature,  with  its  curious  vacillation  between  personality 
and  abstraction,  is  absolutely  incongruous  with  the  warm, 
living,  concrete,  personal  figure  of  the  Pauline  Christ.  The  two 
belong  to  totally  different  circles  of  ideas.  No  wonder  that 
even  Bousset  (as  Windisch  complains)  has  not  ventured  to 
bring  them  into  connection.  The  Pauline  Christology  was 
certainly  not  based  upon  the  pre-Christian  doctrine  of  Wisdom. 
Thus  the  first  great  objection  to  Wrede's  derivation  of 
the  Pauline  Christology  is  that  it  is  simply  insufficient.  The 
Messiah  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses  is  not  great  enough  to  have 
been  the  basis  of  the  Pauline  Christ.  If  before  the  conversion 
Paul  had  believed  in  the  apocalyptic  Messiah,  then  when  he 
was  converted  he  lifted  his  conception  to  far  greater  heights 
than  it  had  before  attained.  But  what  caused  him  to  do  so? 
Apparently  he  ought  to  have  done  exactly  the  reverse.  If 
Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  then  the  identification  of  the  Messiah 
with  Him  ought  to  have  pushed  the  conception  of  the  Messiah 
down  instead  of  lifting  it  up.  As  Baldensperger  significant- 
ly remarks,  the  Jewish  apocalyptists  faced  less  difficulty  in 
presenting  a  transcendent  Messiah  than  did  their  successors, 
the  exponents  of  a  metaphysical  Christology  in  the  Christian 
Church,  since  the  Jewish  apocalyptists  could  give  free  course 
to  their  fancy,  whereas  the  Christians  were  hampered  by  the 
recollections  of  the  earthly  Jesus.1  This  observation,  on  the 
basis  of  Baldensperger's  naturalistic  presuppositions,  is  en- 
tirely correct.  But  the  strange  thing  is  that  the  recollections 
of  Jesus,  far  from  hampering  the  Christians  in  their  ascrip- 
tion of  supernatural  attributes  to  the  Messiah,  actually  had 
just  the  opposite  effect.  Paul  furnishes  a  striking  example. 
Before  he  identified  the  Messiah  with  Jesus,  he  did  not  really 
think  of  the  Messiah  as  divine — not  even  if  he  believed  in  the 
transcendent  Messiah  of  1  Enoch.  But  after  he  identified  the 
Messiah  with  Jesus,  he  said  "not  by  man  but  by  Christ."  Why 
was  it  that  identification  with  Jesus,  instead  of  bringing  the 
apocalyptic  Messiah  down  to  earth,  lifted  Him  rather  to  the 
throne  of  God?  Was  it,  after  all,  because  of  something  in 
Jesus?  If  it  was,  then  the  eternal  Son  of  God  walked  upon 
earth,  and  suffered  for  the  sins  of  men.  If  it  was  not,  then  the 
fundamental  historical  problem  of  Christianity  is  still  entirely 
unsolved. 

1  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.,  p.  126. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  205 

But  another  objection  faces  the  solution  proposed  by 
Wrede  and  Bruckner.  Suppose  the  apocalyptic  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah  were  really  adequate  to  the  strain  which  is  placed 
upon  it.  Suppose  it  really  represented  the  Messiah  as  active 
in  creation  and  as  indwelling  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  and 
as  exalted  to  the  throne  of  God.  These  suppositions  are 
entirely  without  warrant  in  the  facts;  they  transcend  by  far 
even  the  claims  of  Wrede  and  Bruckner  themselves.  But  sup- 
pose they  were  correct.  Even  then  the  genesis  of  Paul's  religion 
would  not  be  explained.  Suppose  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
Messiah  really  was  complete  in  his  mind  before  he  was  con- 
verted. Even  then,  another  problem  remains.  How  did  he  come 
to  identify  his  exalted  Messiah  with  a  Jew  who  had  lived  but  a 
few  years  before  and  had  died  a  shameful  death?  The  thing 
might  be  explained  if  Jesus  was  what  He  is  represented  in  all  of 
the  extant  sources  as  being — a  supernatural  person  whose 
glory  shone  out  plain  even  through  the  veil  of  flesh.  It  might 
be  explained  if  Paul  before  his  conversion  really  believed  that 
the  heavenly  Christ  was  to  come  to  earth  before  His  final 
parousia  and  die  an  accursed  death.  But  the  former  alterna- 
tive is  excluded  by  the  naturalistic  presuppositions  of  the 
modern  man.  And  the  latter  is  excluded  by  an  overwhelming 
weight  of  evidence  as  to  pre-Christian  Judaism  and  the  pre- 
Christian  life  of  Paul.  How  then  did  Paul  come  to  identify 
his  heavenly  Messiah  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth?  It  could  only 
have  been  through  the  strange  experience  which  he  had  near 
Damascus.  But  what,  in  turn,  caused  that  experience?  No 
answer,  on  the  basis  of  naturalistic  presuppositions,  has  yet 
been  given.  In  removing  the  supernatural  from  the  earthly 
life  of  Jesus,  modern  naturalism  has  precluded  the  only  pos- 
sible naturalistic  explanation  of  the  conversion  of  Paul.  If 
Jesus  had  given  evidence  of  being  the  heavenly  Son  of  Man, 
then  Paul  might  conceivably,  though  still  not  probably,  have 
become  convinced  against  his  will,  and  might,  conceivably 
though  still  not  probably,  have  experienced  an  hallucination 
in  which  he  thought  he  saw  Jesus  living  in  glory.  But  if 
Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  the  identification  of  Him  with  the  heav- 
enly apocalyptic  Messiah  becomes  inconceivable,  and  the  ex- 
perience through  which  that  identification  took  place  is  left 
absolutely  uncaused.  Thus  the  hypothesis  of  Wrede  and 
Bruckner  defeats  itself.  In  arguing  that  Paul's  pre-conversion 


206  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

conception  of  the  Messiah  was  not  a  conception  of  a  mere 
earthly  being  or  the  like,  but  that  of  a  transcendent  being, 
Wrede  and  Bruckner  are  really  digging  the  grave  of  their  own 
theory.  For  the  more  exalted  was  the  Messiah  in  whom  Paul 
believed  before  his  conversion,  the  more  inexplicable  becomes 
the  identification  of  that  Messiah  with  a  crucified  malefactor. 
But  still  another  objection  remains.  Suppose  the  Pauline 
Christ  were  simply  the  Messiah  of  the  Jewish  apocalypses ;  sup- 
pose Paul  knew  so  little  about  the  historical  Jesus  that  he  could 
even  identify  the  exalted  Messiah  with  Him.  Even  then  an- 
other fact  requires  explanation.  How  did  Paul  come  to  be 
so  strikingly  similar  to  the  historical  Jesus  both  in  teaching 
and  in  character?  Wrede  was  audacious  enough  to  explain 
the  similarity  as  due  to  a  common  dependence  upon  Juda- 
ism.1 But  at  this  point  few  have  followed  him.  For  the 
striking  fact  is  that  Paul  agrees  with  Jesus  in  just  those 
matters  to  which  Judaism  was  most  signally  opposed.  It  would 
be  more  plausible  to  say  that  Paul  agrees  with  Jesus  because 
both  of  them  abandoned  contemporary  Judaism  and  returned  to 
the  Old  Testament  prophets.  But  even  that  explanation  would 
be  quite  inadequate.  The  similarity  between  Jesus  and  Paul 
goes  far  beyond  what  both  hold  in  common  with  the  Prophets 
and  the  Psalms.  And  why  did  two  men  return  to  the  Prophets 
and  Psalms  at  just  the  same  time  and  in  just  the  same  way? 
The  similarity  between  Jesus  and  Paul  might  then  be  regarded 
as  due  to  mere  chance.  Paul,  it  might  be  supposed,  developed 
the  ideal  of  Christian  love  from  the  death  of  the  Messiah, 
which  he  interpreted  as  an  act  of  self-sacrifice.2  This  ideal 
of  love  happened  to  be  just  the  same  as  that  which  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  exemplified  in  a  life  of  service — to  which  life  of 
service,  however,  Paul  was  completely  indifferent.  Such,  es- 
sentially, is  what  the  hypothesis  of  Wrede  really  amounts  to. 
The  hypothesis  is  really  absurd.  But  its  absurdity  is  instruc- 
tive. It  is  an  absurdity  to  which  the  naturalistic  account  of 
the  origin  of  Christianity  is  driven  by  an  inexorable  logic. 
Paul,  it  must  be  supposed,  could  not  have  regarded  Jesus  as  a 
divine  being  if  he  had  really  known  Jesus.  The  similarity  of 

1  Wrede,  Paulus,  1904,  pp.  90,  91    (English  Translation,  Paul,  1907,  pp. 
157,  158). 
•See  Bruckner,  op.  cit.,  p.  237. 


THE  JEWISH  ENVIRONMENT  207 

his  life  and  teaching  to  that  of  Jesus  cannot,  therefore,  be  due 
to  knowledge  of  Jesus.  It  must  therefore  be  due  to  chance. 
In  other  words,  it  is  dangerous,  on  naturalistic  principles,  to 
bring  Paul  into  contact  with  Jesus.  For  if  he  is  brought  into 
contact  with  Jesus,  his  witness  to  Jesus  will  have  to  be  heard. 
And  when  his  witness  is  heard,  the  elaborate  modern  recon- 
structions of  the  "liberal  Jesus"  fall  to  the  ground.  For  ac- 
cording to  Paul,  Jesus  was  no  mere  Galilean  prophet,  but  the 
Lord  of  Glory. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC 

AGE 


CHAPTER    VI 

THE    RELIGION    OF    THE    HELLENISTIC    AGE 

IT  has  been  shown  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  religion 
of  Paul  was  not  derived  from  the  pre-Christian  Jewish  doctrine 
of  the  Messiah.  If,  therefore,  the  derivation  of  Paulinism 
from  the  historical  Jesus  is  still  to  be  abandoned,  recourse 
must  be  had  to  the  pagan  world.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  in  the  pagan  world  that  the  genesis  of  Paulinism  is  to-day 
more  and  more  frequently  being  sought.  The  following  chap- 
ters will  deal  with  that  hypothesis  which  makes  the  religion  of 
Paul  essentially  a  product  of  the  syncretistic  pagan  religion 
of  the  Hellenistic  age. 

This  hypothesis  is  not  only  held  in  many  different  forms, 
but  also  enters  into  combination  with  the  view  which  has  been 
considered  in  the  last  chapter.  For  example,  M.  Bruckner, 
who  regards  the  Pauline  Christology  as  being  simply  the  Jewish 
conception  of  the  Messiah,  modified  by  the  episode  of  the  Mes- 
siah's humiliation,  is  by  no  means  hostile  to  the  hypothesis 
of  pagan  influence.  On  the  contrary,  he  brings  the  Jewish 
conception  of  the  Messiah  upon  which  the  Pauline  Christology 
is  thought  to  be  based,  itself  into  connection  with  the  wide- 
spread pagan  myth  of  a  dying  and  rising  saviour-god.1  Thus 
Bruckner  is  at  one  with  the  modern  school  of  comparative 
religion  in  deriving  Paul's  religion  from  paganism ;  only  he 
derives  it  from  paganism  not  directly  but  through  the  medium 
of  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah.  On  the  other  hand, 
most  of  those  who  find  direct  and  not  merely  mediate  pagan  in- 
fluence at  the  heart  of  the  religion  of  Paul  are  also  willing 
to  admit  that  some  important  influences  came  through  pre- 
Christian  Judaism — notably,  through  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tions of  the  apocalypses.  The  division  between  the  subject  of 
the  present  chapter  and  that  of  the  preceding  chapter  is  there- 
fore difficult  to  carry  out.  Nevertheless,  that  division  will  be 
1  Briickner,  Der  sterbende  und  auferstehende  Gottheiland,  1908. 

211 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

found  convenient.  It  will  be  well  to  consider  separately  the 
hypothesis  (now  in  the  very  forefront  of  interest)  which  de- 
rives Paulinism,  not  from  the  historical  Jesus,  and  not  from 
pre-Christian  Judaism,  but  from  the  pagan  religion  of  the 
Greco-Roman  world. 

Here,  as  in  the  last  chapter,  the  discussion  may  begin 
with  a  brief  review  of  that  type  of  religion  from  which  Paul- 
inism is  thought  to  have  been  derived.  The  review  will  again 
have  to  be  of  a  most  cursory  character,  and  will  make  free 
use  of  recent  researches.1  Those  researches  are  becoming 
more  and  more  extensive  in  recent  years.  The  Hellenistic  age  is 
no  longer  regarded  as  a  period  of  hopeless  decadence,  but  is 
commanding  a  larger  and  larger  share  of  attention  from  philo- 
logians  and  from  students  of  the  history  of  religion.  The 
sources,  however,  so  far  as  the  sphere  of  popular  religion  is  con- 
cerned, are  rather  meager.  Complete  unanimity  of  opinion, 
therefore,  even  regarding  fundamental  matters,  has  by  no 
means  been  attained. 

At  the  time  of  Paul,  the  civilized  world  was  unified, 
politically,  under  the  Roman  Empire.  The  native  religion  of 
Rome,  however,  was  not  an  important  factor  in  the  life  of  the 
Empire — certainly  not  in  the  East.  That  religion  had  been 
closely  bound  up  with  the  life  of  the  Roman  city-state.  It 
had  been  concerned  largely  with  a  system  of  auguries  and  re- 
ligious ceremonies  intended  to  guide  the  fortunes  of  the  city 
and  insure  the  favor  of  the  gods.  But  there  had  been  little 
attempt  to  enter  into  any  sort  of  personal  contact  with  the 
gods  or  even  to  produce  any  highly  differentiated  account  of 
their  nature.  The  native  religion  of  Rome,  on  the  whole, 
seems  to  have  been  rather  a  cold,  unsatisfying  affair.  It 
aroused  the  emotions  of  the  people  only  because  it  was  an  ex- 
pression of  stern  and  sturdy  patriotism.  And  it  tended  to 
lose  its  influence  when  the  horizon  of  the  people  was  broadened 
by  contact  with  the  outside  world. 

The  most  important  change  was  wrought  by  contact  with 
Greece.  When  Rome  began  to  extend  her  conquests  into  the 
East,  the  eastern  countries,  to  a  very  considerable  extent, 

1For  example,  Rohde,  Psyche,  2  Bde,  3te  Aufl.,  1903;  Farnell,  Cults  of 
the  Greek  States,  vol.  iii,  1907;  Wendland,  Die  hellenistuch-romische  Kultur, 
2te  u.  3te  Aufl.,  1912;  Anrich,  Dag  antike  Mysterienwesen,  1894;  Curaont, 
Les  religions  orientates  dans  le  paganisme  romain,  2ieme  £d.,  1909  (Eng- 
lish Translation,  The  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  1911). 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

had  already  been  Hellenized,  by  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
and  by  the  Greek  kingdoms  into  which  his  short-lived  empire 
had  been  divided.  Thus  the  Roman  conquerors  came  into  con- 
tact with  Greek  civilization,  not  only  in  the  Greek  colonies 
in  Sicily  and  southern  Italy,  not  only  in  Greece  proper  and  on 
the  ^Egean  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  but  also  to  some  extent  every- 
where in  the  eastern  world.  No  attempt  was  made  to  root  out 
the  Greek  influences.  On  the  contrary,  the  conquerors  to  a 
very  considerable  extent  were  conquered  by  those  whom  they 
had  conquered ;  Rome  submitted  herself,  in  the  spiritual  sphere, 
to  the  dominance  of  Greece. 

The  Greek  influence  extended  into  the  sphere  of  religion. 
At  a  very  early  time,  the  ancient  Roman  gods  were  identified 
with  the  Greek  gods  who  possessed  roughly  analogous  functions 
— Jupiter  became  Zeus,  for  example,  and  Venus  became  Aphro- 
dite. This  identification  brought  an  important  enrichment  into 
Roman  religion.  The  cold  and  lifeless  figures  of  the  Roman 
pantheon  began  to  take  on  the  grace  and  beauty  and  the 
clearly  defined  personal  character  which  had  been  given  to  their 
Greek  counterparts  by  Homer  and  Hesiod  and  the  dramatists 
and  Phidias  and  Praxiteles.  Thus  it  is  not  to  the  ancient  offi- 
cial religion  of  Rome  but  to  the  rich  pantheon  of  Homer  that 
the  student  must  turn  in  order  to  find  the  spiritual  ancestry  of 
the  religion  of  the  Hellenistic  world. 

Even  before  the  time  of  Homer,  Greek  religion  had  under- 
gone development.  Modern  scholarship,  at  least,  is  no  longer 
inclined  to  find  in  Homer  the  artless  simplicity  of  a  primitive 
age.  On  the  contrary,  the  Homeric  poems,  it  is  now  supposed, 
were  the  product  of  a  highly  developed,  aristocratic  society, 
which  must  be  thought  of  as  standing  at  the  apex  of  a  social 
order.  Thus  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  religion  of 
Homer  was  the  only  Hellenic  religion  of  Homer's  day.  On  the 
contrary,  even  in  the  Homeric  poems,  it  is  said,  there  appear 
here  and  there  remnants  of  a  popular  primitive  religion — 
human  sacrifice  and  the  like — and  many  of  the  rough,  primi- 
tive conceptions  which  crop  out  in  Greek  life  in  the  later 
centuries  were  really  present  long  before  the  Homeric  age, 
and  had  been  preserved  beneath  the  surface  in  the  depths  of 
a  non-literary  popular  religion.  However  much  of  truth  there 
may  be  in  these  contentions,  it  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  the 
Homeric  poems  exerted  an  enormous  influence  upon  subsequent 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

generations.  Even  if  they  were  the  product  of  a  limited  cir- 
cle, even  if  they  never  succeeded  in  eradicating  the  primitive 
conceptions,  at  least  they  did  gain  enormous  prestige  and  did 
become  the  most  important  single  factor  in  molding  the  re- 
ligion of  the  golden  age  of  Greece. 

As  determined  by  the  Homeric  poems,  the  religion  of  Greece 
was  a  highly  developed  polytheism  of  a  thoroughly  anthropo- 
morphic kind.  The  Greek  gods  were  simply  men  and  women, 
with  human  passions  and  human  sins — more  powerful,  indeed, 
but  not  more  righteous  than  those  who  worshiped  them.  Such 
a  religion  was  stimulating  to  the  highest  art.  Anthropomorph- 
ism gave  free  course  to  the  imagination  of  poets  and  sculptors. 
There  is  nothing  lifeless  about  the  gods  of  Greece;  whether 
portrayed  by  the  chisel  of  sculptors  or  the  pen  of  poets,  they 
are  warm,  living,  breathing,  human  figures.  But  however 
stimulating  to  the  sense  of  beauty,  the  anthropomorphic  re- 
ligion of  Greece  was  singularly  unsatisfying  in  the  moral 
sphere.  If  the  gods  were  no  better  than  men,  the  worship  of 
them  was  not  necessarily  ennobling.  No  doubt  there  was  a  cer- 
tain moral  quality  in  the  very  act  of  worship.  For  worship 
was  not  always  conceived  of  as  mere  prudent  propitiation  of 
dangerous  tyrants.  Sometimes  it  was  conceived  of  as  a  duty, 
like  the  pious  reverence  which  a  child  should  exhibit  toward  his 
parent.  In  the  case  of  filial  piety,  as  in  the  case  of  piety  toward 
the  gods,  the  duty  of  reverence  is  independent  of  the  moral 
quality  of  the  revered  object.  But  in  both  cases  the  very  act 
of  reverence  may  possess  a  certain  moral  value.  This  admis- 
sion, however,  does  not  change  the  essential  fact.  It  remains 
true  that  the  anthropomorphic  character  of  the  gods  of  Greece, 
just  because  it  stimulated  the  fancy  of  poets  by  attributing 
human  passions  to  the  gods  and  so  provided  the  materials  of 
dramatic  art,  at  the  same  time  prevented  religion  from  lifting 
society  above  the  prevailing  standards.  The  moral  standards 
of  snowy  Olympus,  unfortunately,  were  not  higher  than  those 
of  the  Athenian  market  place. 

In  another  way  also,  the  polytheistic  religion  of  Greece 
was  unsatisfying.  It  provided  little  hope  of  personal  com- 
munion between  the  gods  and  men.  Religion,  in  Greece  scarcely 
less  than  in  ancient  Rome,  was  an  affair  of  the  state.  A  man 
was  born  into  his  religion.  An  Athenian  citizen,  as  such,  was 
a  worshiper  of  the  Athenian  gods.  There  was  little  place  for 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  215 

individual  choice  or  for  individual  devotion.  Moreover,  there 
was  little  place  for  the  mystical  element  in  religion.  The 
gods  of  Greece  were  in  some  sort,  indeed,  companionable  fig- 
ures ;  they  were  similar  to  men ;  men  could  understand  the  mo- 
tives of  their  actions.  But  there  was  no  way  in  which  compan- 
ionship with  them  could  find  expression.  There  was  a  time,  in- 
deed, when  the  gods  had  come  down  to  earth  to  help  the  great 
heroes  who  were  their  favorites  or  their  sons.  But  such  favors 
were  not  given  to  ordinary  mortals.  The  gods  might  be  revered, 
but  direct  and  individual  contact  with  them  was  for  the  most 
part  not  to  be  attained. 

These  limitations,  however,  were  not  universal;  and  for 
purposes  of  the  present  investigation  the  exceptions  are  far 
more  important  than  the  rule.  It  is  not  true  that  the  religion 
of  Greece,  even  previous  to  the  golden  age,  was  entirely  de- 
void of  enthusiasm  or  individualism  or  mystic  contact  with 
the  gods.  The  polytheism  of  Homer,  the  polytheism  of  the 
Olympic  pantheon,  despite  its  wide  prevalence  was  not  the  only 
form  of  Greek  religion.  Along  with  the  worship  of  the  Olympic 
gods  there  went  also  religious  practices  of  a  very  different 
kind.  There  was  a  place  even  in  Greece  for  mystical  religion. 

This  mystical  or  enthusiastic  element  in  the  religion  of 
Greece  is  connected  especially  with  the  worship  of  Dionysus. 
Dionysus  was  not  originally  a  Greek  god.  He  came  from 
Thrace  and  is  very  closely  related  to  the  Phrygian  Sabazius. 
But,  at  an  early  time,  his  worship  was  widely  adopted  in  the 
Greek  world.  No  doubt  it  was  not  adopted  entirely  without 
modification;  no  doubt  it  was  shorn  of  some  of  those  features 
which  were  most  repulsive  to  the  Greek  genius.  But  enough 
remained  in  order  to  affect  very  powerfully  the  character  of 
Greek  religion. 

The  worship  of  Dionysus  supplied,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
just  those  elements  which  were  lacking  in  the  religion  of  the 
Greek  city-state.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  direct  contact 
with  the  god.  The  worshipers  of  Dionysus  sought  to  attain 
contact  with  the  god  partly  by  a  divine  frenzy,  which  was  in- 
duced by  wild  music  and  dancing,  and  partly  by  the  crass 
method  of  eating  the  raw  flesh  of  the  sacred  animal,  the  bull. 
No  doubt  these  savage  practices  were  often  modified  when  they 
were  introduced  into  Greece.  It  has  been  thought,  for  example, 
that  the  frenzied  dances  and  nightly  excursions  to  the  wilds 


216          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  mountains,  which  originally  had  been  carried  on  in  true 
self-forgetfulness,  became  in  Greece  rather  parts  of  an  estab- 
lished cult.  But  on  the  whole,  the  influence  of  Dionysus-wor- 
ship must  be  regarded  as  very  great.  An  element  of  true  mys- 
ticism or  enthusiasm  was  introduced  into  the  Greek  world. 

In  the  second  place,  the  worship  of  Dionysus  stimulated 
interest  in  a  future  life.  The  Homeric  poems  had  represented 
the  existence  of  the  soul  after  death — at  least  the  soul  of 
an  ordinary  mortal — as  being  a  mere  shadow-existence  which 
could  not  be  called  life  at  all.  It  is  indeed  questionable 
whether  at  this  point  Homer  truly  represented  the  original 
Hellenic  belief,  or  the  popular  belief  even  of  the  time  when 
the  poems  were  written.  Modern  scholars  have  detected  in  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  here  and  there  remnants  of  a  more  posi- 
tive doctrine  of  a  future  life.  But  at  any  rate,  the  worship  of 
Dionysus  brought  such  positive  beliefs — if  they  existed  in 
Greece  before — more  to  the  surface.  Thracian  religion,  ap- 
parently, had  concerned  itself  to  a  very  considerable  extent 
with  the  future  condition  of  the  soul;  the  introduction  of  the 
Thracian  Dionysus,  therefore,  stimulated  a  similar  interest  in 
Greece. 

Finally,  the  worship  of  Dionysus  tended  to  separate  religion 
from  the  state  and  make  it  partly  at  least  an  affair  of  the 
individual  man.  Such  individualism  is  connected  of  course 
with  the  enthusiastic  character  of  the  worship ;  a  state  religion 
as  such  is  not  likely  to  be  enthusiastic.  The  whole  body  of 
citizens  cannot  be  possessed  of  a  divine  frenzy,  and  if  not, 
then  those  who  have  the  experience  are  likely  to  separate  them- 
selves to  some  extent  from  their  countrymen.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,  that  the  worshipers  of  Dionysus,  here  and 
there,  were  inclined  to  unite  themselves  in  sects  or  brother- 
hoods. 

The  most  important  of  these  brotherhoods  were  connected 
with  the  name  of  Orpheus,  the  mythical  musician  and  seer. 
The  origin  of  the  Orphic  sects  is  indeed  very  obscure.  Ap- 
parently, however,  they  sprang  up  or  became  influential  in  the 
sixth  century  before  Christ,  and  were  connected  in  some  way 
with  Dionysus.  They  seem  to  have  represented  a  reform  of 
Dionysiac  practice.  At  any  rate,  they  continued  that  interest 
in  the  future  life  which  the  worship  of  Dionysus  had  already 
cultivated.  Orphism  is  especially  important  because  it  taught 
men  to  expect  in  the  future  life  not  only  rewards  but  also 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE    217 

punishments.  The  soul  after  death,  according  to  Orphic  doc- 
trine, was  subject  to  an  indefinite  succession  of  reincarnations, 
not  only  in  the  bodies  of  men,  but  also  in  those  of  animals. 
These  reincarnations  were  regarded  as  an  evil,  because  the 
body  was  thought  of  as  a  prison-house  of  the  soul.  At  last, 
however,  the  righteous  soul  attains  purification,  and,  escaping 
from  the  succession  of  births,  enters  into  a  blessed  existence. 

Related  in  some  way  to  the  Orphic  sects  were  the  brother- 
hoods that  owned  Pythagoras  as  their  master.  But  the  rela- 
tion between  the  two  movements  is  not  perfectly  plain. 

At  any  rate,  both  Orphism  and  Pythagoreanism  stand  apart 
from  the  official  cults  of  the  Greek  states.  Even  within  those 
cults,  however,  there  were  not  wanting  some  elements  which 
satisfied  more  fully  than  the  ordinary  worship  of  the  Olympic 
gods  the  longing  of  individual  men  for  contact  with  the  higher 
powers  and  for  a  blessed  immortality.  Such  elements  were 
found  in  the  "mysteries,"  of  which  far  the  most  important 
were  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis.1  The  Eleusinian  Mysteries 
originated  in  the  worship  of  Demeter  that  was  carried  on  at 
Eleusis,  a  town  in  Attica  some  fifteen  miles  from  Athens. 
When  Eleusis  was  conquered  by  Athens,  the  Eleusinian  cult  of 
Demeter,  far  from  suffering  eclipse,  was  adopted  by  the  con- 
querors and  so  attained  unparalleled  influence.  Characteristic 
of  the  cult  as  so  developed  was  the  secrecy  of  its  central  rites ; 
the  Eleusinian  cult  of  Demeter  became  (if  it  was  not  one  al- 
ready) a  mystery-cult,  whose  secrets  were  divulged  only  to 
the  initiates.  The  terms  of  admission,  however,  were  very 
broad.  All  persons  of  Greek  race,  even  slaves — except  those 
persons  who  were  stained  with  bloodguiltiness  or  the  like — 
could  be  admitted.  As  so  constituted,  the  Eleusinian  Mysteries 
were  active  for  some  ten  centuries ;  they  continued  until  the 
very  end  of  pagan  antiquity. 

Initiation  into  the  mysteries  took  place  ordinarily  in  three 
stages;  the  candidate  was  first  initiated  into  the  "lesser  mys- 
teries" at  Agras  near  Athens  in  the  spring;  then  into  a  first 
stage  of  the  "great  mysteries"  at  Eleusis  in  the  following 
autumn ;  then  a  year  later  his  initiation  was  completed  at 
Eleusis  by  the  reception  of  the  mystic  vision.  The  mysteries 
of  Eleusis  were  prepared  for  by  a  succession  of  acts  about 

1On    the    Eleusinian    Mysteries    and    the    cult    of    Demeter    and    Kore- 
Persephone,  see  especially  Farnell,  op.  cit.,  iii,  pp.  29-279. 


218  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

which  some  information  has  been  preserved.  These  acts  were 
extended  over  a  period  of  days.  First  the  sacred  objects  were 
brought  from  Eleusis  to  Athens.  Then  the  candidates  for 
initiation,  who  had  purified  themselves  by  abstinence  from  cer- 
tain kinds  of  food  and  from  sexual  intercourse,  were  called 
upon  to  assemble.  Then,  at  the  cry,  "To  the  sea,  O  mystse !" 
the  candidates  went  to  the  sea-coast,  where  they  made  sacrifice 
of  a  pig,  and  purified  themselves  by  washing  in  the  sea  water. 
Then  came  the  solemn  procession  from  Athens  to  Eleusis,  inter- 
rupted by  ribald  jests  at  the  passage  of  the  river  Cephissus. 
The  initiation  itself  took  place  in  the  "telesterion."  What 
happened  there  is  obscure;  antiquity  has  well  observed  the 
secrecy  which  was  essential  to  the  mysteries.  Certainly,  how- 
ever, the  ceremony  was  accompanied,  or  rather,  perhaps,  pre- 
ceded, by  the  drinking  of  the  "kykeon,"  a  mixture  composed 
of  water  and  barley-meal  and  other  ingredients.  The  signifi- 
cance of  this  act  is  not  really  known.  It  would  be  very  rash, 
for  example,  to  assert  that  the  partaking  of  the  kykeon  was 
sacramental,  or  was  thought  of  as  imparting  a  new  nature 
to  the  recipients.  Apparently  the  kykeon  did  not  have  a  part 
in  the  mysteries  themselves,  for  if  it  had,  it  could  hardly  have 
been  spoken  of  so  openly  by  pagan  writers.  The  mysteries 
seem  to  have  consisted  in  some  sort  of  sacred  drama,  repre- 
senting the  search  of  Demeter  for  her  daughter  Persephone 
who  had  been  carried  off  to  the  lower  world,  and  in  the  ex- 
hibition of  sacred  emblems  or  of  images  of  the  gods.  Hippolytus 
scornfully  says  that  the  supreme  object  of  mystic  awe  was  a 
cut  corn-stalk.1  His  testimony  is  variously  estimated.  But 
it  is  quite  possible  that  he  has  here  given  us  genuine  informa- 
tion. Since  Demeter  was  the  goddess  of  the  fertility  of  the 
soil,  the  corn-stalk  was  not  ill  fitted  to  be  her  sacred  emblem. 
It  has  been  supposed  that  the  cult  of  Demeter  at  Eleusis 
was  originally  an  agrarian  cult,  intended  to  celebrate  or  to 
induce  the  fertility  of  the  soil.  But  the  chief  significance  of 
the  mysteries  was  found  in  another  sphere.  In  the  mysteries, 
the  cult  goddesses,  Demeter  and  Persephone,  were  thought  of 
chiefly  as  goddesses  of  the  nether  world,  the  abode  of  the  dead ; 
and  the  mysteries  were  valued  chiefly  as  providing  a  guarantee 
of  a  blessed  immortality.  How  the  guarantee  was  given  is  quite 
obscure.  But  the  fact  is  well  attested.  Those  who  had  been 
1  Hippolytus,  Ref.  omn.  haer.,  V.  viii.  39  (ed,  Wendland,  1916). 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

initiated  into  the  mysteries  were  able  to  expect  a  better  lot  in 
the  future  life  than  the  lot  of  the  generality  of  men. 

The  mysteries  at  Eleusis  were  not  the  only  mysteries  which 
were  practised  in  the  golden  age  of  Greece.  There  were  not 
only  offshoots  of  the  Eleusinian  mysteries  in  various  places, 
but  also  independent  mysteries  like  those  of  the  Kabeiri  on  the 
island  of  Samothrace.  But  the  mysteries  at  Eleusis  were  un- 
doubtedly the  most  important,  and  the  others  are  even  less 
fully  known.  The  moral  value  of  the  mysteries,  including  those 
at  Eleusis,  should  not  be  exaggerated.  Slight  allusions  in 
pagan  writers  seem  to  point  here  and  there  to  a  purifying  moral 
effect  wrought  by  initiation.  But  the  indications  are  not  very 
clear.  Certainly  the  secrets  of  Eleusis  did  not  consist  in  any 
body  of  teaching,  either  religious  or  ethical.  The  effect  was 
produced,  not  upon  the  intellect,  but  upon  the  emotions  and 
upon  the  imagination. 

Thus  the  religion  of  the  golden  age  of  Greece  was  an 
anthropomorphic  polytheism,  closely  connected  with  the  life 
of  the  city-state,  but  relieved  here  and  there  by  practices  in- 
tended to  provide  more  direct  contact  with  the  divine  or  bestow 
special  blessing  upon  individuals. 

The  religion  of  Greece  was  finally  undermined  by  at  least 
three  agencies. 

In  the  first  place,  philosophy  tended  to  destroy  belief 
in  the  gods.  The  philosophic  criticism  of  the  existing  religion 
was  partly  theoretical  and  partly  ethical.  The  theoretical 
criticism  arose  especially  through  the  search  for  a  unifying 
principle  operative  in  the  universe.  If  the  manifold  phenomena 
of  the  universe  were  all  reduced  to  a  single  cause,  the  gods  might 
indeed  still  be  thought  of  as  existing,  but  their  importance  was 
gone.  There  was  thus  a  tendency  either  toward  monotheism 
or  else  toward  some  sort  of  materialistic  monism.  But  the 
objections  which  philosophy  raised  against  the  existing  poly- 
theism were  ethical  as  well  as  theoretical.  The  Homeric  myths 
were  rightly  felt  to  be  immoral;  the  imitation  of  the  Homeric 
gods  would  result  in  moral  degradation.  Thus  if  the  myths 
were  still  to  be  retained  they  could  not  be  interpreted  literally, 
but  had  to  be  given  some  kind  of  allegorical  interpretation. 

This  opposition  of  philosophy  to  the  existing  religion  was 
often  not  explicit,  and  it  did  not  concern  religious  practice. 
Even  those  philosophers  whose  theory  left  no  room  for  the 


220  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

existence  or  at  least  the  importance  of  the  gods,  continued  to 
engage  loyally  in  the  established  cults.  But  although  the 
superstructure  of  religion  remained,  the  foundation,  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least,  was  undermined. 

In  the  second  place,  since  religion  in  ancient  Greece  had 
been  closely  connected  with  the  city-states,  the  destruction 
of  the  states  brought  important  changes  in  religion.  The 
Greek  states  lost  their  independence  through  the  conquests 
of  Philip  of  Macedon  and  Alexander  the  Great.  Those  con- 
quests meant,  indeed,  a  wide  extension  of  Greek  culture  through- 
out the  eastern  world.  But  the  religion  of  Alexander's  empire 
and  of  the  kingdoms  into  which  it  was  divided  after  his  death 
was  widely  different  from  the  religion  of  Athens  in  her  glory. 
Cosmopolitanism  brought  mighty  changes  in  religion,  as  in  the 
political  sphere. 

In  the  third  place,  the  influence  of  the  eastern  religions 
made  itself  more  and  more  strongly  felt.  That  influence  was 
never  indeed  dominant  in  the  life  of  Greece  proper  so  com- 
pletely as  it  was  in  some  other  parts  of  the  world.  But  in  gen- 
eral it  was  very  important.  When  the  Olympic  gods  lost  their 
place  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  other  gods  were  ready 
to  take  their  place. 

Before  any  account  can  be  given  of  the  eastern  religions 
taken  separately,  and  of  their  progress  toward  the  west,  it 
may  be  well  to  mention  certain  general  characteristics  of  the 
period  which  followed  the  conquests  of  Alexander.  That  period, 
which  extended  several  centuries  into  the  Christian  era,  is 
usually  called  the  Hellenistic  age,  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
Hellenic  period  which  had  gone  before. 

The  Hellenistic  age  was  characterized,  in  the  first  place, 
by  cosmopolitanism.  Natural  and  racial  barriers  to  an  aston- 
ishing extent  were  broken  down;  the  world,  at  least  the  edu- 
cated world  of  the  cities,  was  united  by  the  bonds  of  a  common 
language,  and  finally  by  a  common  political  control.  The  com- 
mon language  was  the  Koine,  the  modified  form  of  the  Attic 
dialect  of  Greek,  which  became  the  vehicle  of  a  world-civiliza- 
tion. The  common  political  control  was  that  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  On  account  of  the  union  of  these  two  factors,  inter- 
communication between  various  nations  and  races  was  safe  and 
easy;  the  nations  were  united  both  in  trade  and  in  intellectual 
activity. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

With  the  cosmopolitanism  thus  produced  there  went  nat- 
urally a  new  individualism,  which  extended  into  the  religious 
sphere.  Under  the  city-state  of  ancient  Greece  the  individual 
was  subordinated  to  the  life  of  the  community.  But  in  the 
world-empire  the  control  of  the  state,  just  because  it  was 
broader,  was  at  the  same  time  looser.  Patriotism  no  longer 
engrossed  the  thoughts  of  men.  It  was  impossible  for  a  sub- 
ject of  a  great  empire  to  identify  himself  with  the  life  of 
the  empire  so  completely  as  the  free  Athenian  citizen  of  the 
age  of  Pericles  had  identified  himself  with  the  glories  of  his 
native  city.  Thus  the  satisfactions  which  in  that  earlier 
period  had  been  sought  in  the  life  of  the  state,  including  the 
state-religion,  were  in  the  Hellenistic  age  sought  rather  in  in- 
dividual religious  practice. 

The  ancient  religions  of  the  city-state  did  indeed  find  a  suc- 
cessor which  was  adapted  to  the  changed  condition.  That 
successor  was  the  worship  of  the  Emperors.  The  worship  of 
the  Emperors  was  more  than  a  mere  form  of  flattery.  It  ex- 
pressed a  general  gratitude  for  the  reign  of  peace  which  was 
introduced  by  Augustus,  and  it  had  its  roots,  not  only  in 
Greek  religion,  but  also,  and  far  more  fundamentally,  in  the 
religions  of  the  East.  The  worship  of  the  rulers  was  firmly 
established  in  the  kingdoms  into  which  Alexander's  empire  was 
divided,  and  from  there  it  was  transmitted  very  naturally  to 
the  new  and  greater  empire  of  Rome.  Very  naturally  it  be- 
came a  dangerous  enemy  of  the  Christian  Church;  for  the  re- 
fusal of  the  Christians  to  worship  the  Emperor  seemed  inex- 
plicable to  an  age  of  polytheism,  and  gave  rise  to  the  charge  of 
political  disloyalty.  At  first,  however,  and  so  during  the 
period  of  Paul's  missionary  journeys,  the  Church  shared  more 
or  less  in  the  special  privileges  which  were  granted  to  the  Jews. 
Christianity  at  first  seemed  to  be  a  variety  of  Judaism,  and 
Judaism  in  Roman  practice  was  a  religio  licita. 

But  the  worship  of  the  Emperors,  important  as  it  was, 
was  not  practised  in  any  exclusive  way;  it  did  not  at  all  ex- 
clude the  worship  of  other  gods.  It  remains  true,  therefore, 
that  in  the  Hellenistic  age,  far  more  than  under  the  ancient 
Greek  city-state,  there  was  room  for  individual  choice  in  re- 
ligious practice. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  such  an  age  was  an  age  of  re- 
ligious propaganda.  Since  religion  was  no  longer  an  affair 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  nation  as  such,  but  addressed  itself  to  men  as  men, 
free  scope  was  offered  for  the  extension  to  the  whole  world 
of  religions  which  originally  had  been  national  in  character. 
The  golden  age  of  such  religious  propaganda,  it  is  true,  did 
not  begin  until  the  second  century ;  and  that  fact  is  of  very 
great  importance  in  dealing  with  certain  modern  theories  of 
dependence  so  far  as  Pauline  Christianity  is  concerned.  Never- 
theless the  cosmopolitanizing  of  national  religions  had  begun  to 
some  extent  in  an  early  period  and  was  rendered  natural  by  the 
entire  character  of  the  Hellenistic  age.  Even  before  the  fall 
of  the  Greek  city-state,  little  communities  of  the  worshipers 
of  eastern  gods  had  established  themselves  here  and  there  in 
Greece;  and  in  other  parts  of  the  world  the  barriers  against 
religious  propaganda  were  even  less  effective.  In  the  Hellen- 
istic age  such  barriers  were  almost  everywhere  broken  down. 
When  any  religion  ceased  to  be  an  affair  of  the  nation,  when  it 
could  no  longer  count  on  the  devotion  of  the  citizens  or  sub- 
jects as  such,  it  was  obliged,  if  it  desired  to  subsist,  to  seek  its 
devotees  through  an  appeal  to  the  free  choice  of  individuals. 

This  religious  propaganda,  however,  was  not  carried  on 
in  any  exclusive  way ;  the  adoption  of  one  god  did  not  mean 
the  abandonment  of  another.  On  the  contrary,  the  Hellen- 
istic age  was  the  age  of  syncretism  par  excellence.  Gods  of 
different  nations,  originally  quite  distinct,  were  identified  al- 
most as  a  matter  of  course.  One  example  of  such  identifica- 
tion has  already  been  noted;  at  an  early  time  the  gods  of 
Rome  were  identified  with  those  of  Greece.  But  in  the  later 
portion  of  the  Hellenistic  age  the  process  went  on  in  more 
wholesale  fashion.  And  it  was  sometimes  justified  by  the  far- 
reaching  theory  that  the  gods  of  different  nations  were  merely 
different  names  of  one  great  divinity.  This  theory  received 
classic  expression  in  the  words  of  the  goddess  Isis  which  are 
contained  in  the  "Metamorphoses"  of  Apuleius :  "For  the 
Phrygians  that  are  the  first  of  all  men  call  me  the  Mother  of 
the  gods  at  Pessinus ;  the  Athenians,  which  are  sprung  from 
their  own  soil,  Cecropian  Minerva;  the  Cyprians,  which  are 
girt  about  by  the  sea,  Paphian  Venus ;  the  Cretans  which  bear 
arrows,  Dictynnian  Diana ;  the  Sicilians,  which  speak  three 
tongues,  infernal  Proserpine;  the  Eleusians  their  ancient  god- 
dess Ceres ;  some  Juno,  other  Bellona,  other  Hecate,  other 
Rhamnusia,  and  principally  both  sort  of  the  Ethiopians  which 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

dwell  in  the  Orient  and  are  enlightened  by  the  morning  rays 
of  the  sun,  and  the  Egyptians,  which  are  excellent  in  all  kind 
of  ancient  doctrine,  and  by  their  proper  ceremonies  accustom 
to  worship  me,  do  call  me  by  my  true  name,  Queen  Isis." 

But  what  is  perhaps  the  most  important  feature  of  the 
religion  of  the  Hellenistic  age  has  not  yet  been  mentioned.  It 
is  found  in  the  widespread  desire  for  redemption.  In  the  golden 
age  of  Greece  men  had  been  satisfied  with  the  world.  Who 
could  engage  in  gloomy  questionings,  who  could  face  the  under- 
lying problem  of  evil,  when  it  was  possible  to  listen  with  keen 
appreciation  to  an  ode  of  Pindar  or  to  a  tragedy  of  ^Eschylus? 
The  Greek  tragic  poets,  it  is  true,  present  in  terrible  fashion 
the  sterner  facts  of  life.  But  the  glorious  beauty  of  the  pres- 
entation itself  produces  a  kind  of  satisfaction.  In  the  age  of 
Pericles,  life  was  rich  and  full ;  for  the  Athenian  citizen  it  was 
a  joy  to  live.  The  thought  of  another  world  was  not  needed; 
this  world  was  large  and  rich  enough.  Joyous  development  of 
existing  human  faculties  was,  in  the  golden  age  of  Greece,  the 
chief  end  of  man. 

But  the  glorious  achievements  of  the  Greek  genius  were  fol- 
lowed by  lamentable  failure.  There  was  failure  in  political  life. 
Despite  the  political  genius  of  Athenian  statesmen,  Athens  soon 
lay  prostrate,  first  before  her  sister  states  and  then  before  the 
Macedonian  conqueror.  There  was  failure  in  intellectual  life. 
The  glorious  achievements  of  Athenian  art  were  followed  by 
a  period  of  decline.  Poets  and  sculptors  had  to  find  their  in- 
spiration in  imitation  of  the  past.  Human  nature,  once  so 
proud,  was  obliged  to  confess  its  inadequacy;  the  Hellenistic 
age  was  characterized  by  what  Gilbert  Murray,  borrowing  a 
phrase  of  J.  B.  Bury,  calls  a  "failure  of  nerve. "  2 

This  failure  of  nerve  found  expression,  in  the  religious 
sphere,  in  the  longing  for  redemption.  The  world  was  found  not 
to  be  so  happy  a  place  as  had  been  supposed,  and  human  nature 
was  obliged  to  seek  help  from  outside.  Thus  arose  the  desire 
for  "salvation."  The  characteristic  gods  of  the  Hellenistic  age 
are  in  some  sort  saviour-gods — gods  who  could  give  help  in  the 
miseries  of  life.  Asclepius  finally  became  more  important  than 

1  Apuleius,  Metam.  xi.  5,  Addington's  translation  revised  by  Gaselee,  in 
Apuleius,  The  Golden  Ass,  in  the  The  Loeb  Classical  Library,  p.  547. 

3  Gilbert  Murray,  Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion,  1912,  pp.  8,  103-154. 
Compare,  however,  Rohde  (op.  cit.,  ii,  pp.  298-300),  who  calls  attention  to 
an  opposite  aspect  of  the  Hellenistic  age. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Zeus.  Dissatisfied  with  the  world  of  sense,  men  turned  their 
thoughts  to  another  world;  dissatisfied  with  the  achievements 
of  human  nature,  they  sought  communion  with  higher  powers. 

Opinions  may  differ  as  to  the  value  of  this  development. 
To  the  humanist  of  all  ages,  it  will  seem  to  be  a  calamity. 
From  the  glories  of  Pindar  to  the  morbid  practices  of  the  Hel- 
lenistic mysteries,  how  great  a  fall !  But  there  is  another  way 
of  regarding  the  change.  Possibly  the  achievements  of  ancient 
Greece,  glorious  as  they  were,  had  been  built  upon  an  insecure 
foundation.  Scrutiny  of  the  foundation  was  no  doubt  painful, 
and  it  dulled  the  enthusiasm  of  the  architects.  But  perhaps 
it  was  necessary  and  certainly  it  was  inevitable.  Perhaps  also 
it  might  become  a  step  toward  some  higher  humanism.  The 
Greek  joy  of  living  was  founded  upon  a  certain  ruthlessness  to- 
ward human  misery,  a  certain  indifference  toward  moral  prob- 
lems. Such  a  joy  could  not  be  permanent.  But  how  would  it 
be  if  the  underlying  problem  could  be  faced,  instead  of  being 
ignored?  How  would  it  be  if  human  nature  could  be  founded 
upon  some  secure  rock,  in  order  that  then  the  architect  might 
start  to  build  once  more,  and  build,  this  time,  with  a  conscience 
void  of  offense?  Such  is  the  Christian  ideal,  the  ideal  of  a 
loftier  humanism — a  humanism  as  rich  and  as  joyful  as  the 
humanism  of  Greece,  but  a  humanism  founded  upon  the  grace 
of  God. 

But  however  "the  failure  of  nerve"  which  appears  in  the 
Hellenistic  age  be  appreciated  by  the  student  of  the  philosophy 
of  history,  the  fact  at  least  cannot  be  ignored.  The  Hellen- 
istic age  was  characterized  by  a  widespread  longing  for  re- 
demption— a  widespread  longing  for  an  escape  from  the  pres- 
ent world  of  sense  to  some  higher  and  better  country.  Such 
longing  was  not  satisfied  by  the  ancient  religion  of  Greece. 
It  caused  men,  therefore,  to  become  seekers  after  new  gods. 

But  what  was  the  attitude  of  philosophy?  Philosophy  had 
contributed  to  the  decline  of  the  ancient  gods.  Had  it  been 
equally  successful  on  the  positive  side?  Had  it  been  able  to 
fill  the  void  which  its  questionings  had  produced.  The  answer 
on  the  whole  must  be  rendered  in  the  negative.  On  the  whole, 
it  must  be  said  that  Greek  philosophy  was  unsuccessful  in  its 
efforts  to  solve  the  riddle  of  the  universe.  The  effort  which 
it  made  was  indeed  imposing.  Plato  in  particular  endeavored 
to  satisfy  the  deepest  longings  of  the  human  soul ;  he  attempted 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

to  provide  an  escape  from  the  world  of  sense  to  the  higher 
world  of  ideas.  But  the  way  of  escape  was  open  at  best  only 
to  the  few  philosophical  souls ;  the  generality  of  men  were  left 
hopeless  and  helpless  in  the  shadow-existence  of  the  cave.  And 
even  the  philosophers  were  not  long  satisfied  with  the  Platonic 
solution.  The  philosophy  of  the  Hellenistic  age  was  either 
openly  skeptical  or  materialistic,  as  is  the  case,  for  example, 
with  Epicureanism,  or  at  any  rate  it  abandoned  the  great 
theoretical  questions  and  busied  itself  chiefly  with  practical 
affairs.  Epicureans  and  Stoics  and  Cynics  were  all  interested 
chiefly,  not  in  ontology  or  epistemology,  but  in  ethics.  At 
this  point  the  first  century  was  like  the  twentieth.  The  distrust 
of  theory,  the  depreciation  of  theology,  the  exclusive  interest 
in  social  and  practical  questions — these  tendencies  appear  now 
as  they  appeared  in  the  Hellenistic  age.  And  now  as  well  as 
then  they  are  marks  of  intellectual  decadence. 

But  if  the  philosophy  of  the  Hellenistic  age  offered  no 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  riddle  of  the  universe  and  no 
satisfaction  for  the  deepest  longings  of  the  soul,  it  presented, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  effective  opposition  to  the  religious  cur- 
rent of  the  time.  It  had  helped  bring  about  that  downfall  of 
the  Olympic  gods,  that  sad  neglect  of  Zeus  and  his  altars 
which  is  described  by  Lucian  in  his  wonderfully  modern  satires. 
But  it  was  not  able  to  check  the  rising  power  of  the  eastern 
religions.  Indeed  it  entered  into  a  curious  alliance  with  the 
invaders.  As  early  as  the  first  century  before  Christ,  Posi- 
donius  seems  to  have  introduced  an  element  of  oriental  mysti- 
cism into  the  philosophy  of  the  Stoics,  and  in  the  succeeding 
centuries  the  process  went  on  apace.  The  climax  was  reached, 
at  the  close  of  pagan  antiquity,  in  that  curious  mixture  of 
philosophy  and  charlatanism  which  is  found  in  the  neo-Platonic 
writers. 

The  philosophy  of  the  Hellenistic  age,  with  its  intense 
interest  in  questions  of  conduct,  constitutes,  indeed,  an  im- 
portant chapter  in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  and  can 
point  to  certain  noteworthy  achievements.  The  Stoics,  for 
example,  enunciated  the  great  principle  of  human  brother- 
hood ;  they  made  use  of  the  cosmopolitanism  and  individualism 
of  the  Hellenistic  age  in  order  to  arouse  a  new  interest  in  man 
as  man.  Even  the  slaves,  who  in  the  theory  of  an  Aristotle 
had  been  treated  as  chattels,  began  to  be  looked  upon  here  and 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

there  as  members  of  a  great  human  family.  Men  of  every 
race  and  of  every  social  grade  came  to  be  the  object  of  a 
true  humanitarian  interest. 

But  the  humanitarian  efforts  of  Stoicism,  though  proceed- 
ing from  an  exalted  theory  of  the  worth  of  man  as  man,  proved 
to  be  powerless.  The  dynamic  somehow  was  lacking.  Despite 
the  teaching  of  Seneca  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  despite  the  begin- 
nings of  true  humanitarian  effort  here  and  there,  the  later 
Empire  with  its  cruel  gladiatorial  shows  and  its  heartless 
social  system  was  sinking  into  the  slough  of  savagery.  What 
Stoicism  was  unable  to  do,  Christianity  to  some  extent  at  least 
accomplished.  The  ideal  of  Christianity  was  not  the  mere  ideal 
of  a  human  brotherhood.  Pure  humanitarianism,  the  notion 
of  "the  brotherhood  of  man,"  as  that  phrase  is  usually  under- 
stood, is  Stoic  rather  than  Christian.  Christianity  did  make 
its  appeal  to  all  men;  it  won  many  of  its  first  adherents  from 
the  depths  of  slavery.  It  did  inculcate  charity  toward  all  men 
whether  Christians  or  not.  And  it  enunciated  with  an  unheard- 
of  seriousness  the  doctrine  that  all  classes  of  men,  wise  and 
unwise,  bond  and  free,  are  of  equal  worth.  But  the  equality 
was  not  found  in  the  common  possession  of  human  nature.  It 
was  found,  instead,  in  a  common  connection  with  Jesus  Christ. 
"There  can  be  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  can  be  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  can  be  no  male  and  female" — so  far  the 
words  of  Paul  can  find  analogies  (faint  analogies,  it  is  true) 
in  the  Stoic  writers.  But  the  Pauline  grounding  of  the  unity 
here  enunciated  is  the  very  antithesis  of  all  mere  humanitarian- 
ism  both  ancient  and  modern — "For  ye  are  all  one  person,"  says 
Paul,  "in  Christ  Jesus."  Christianity  did  not  reveal  the  fact 
that  all  men  were  brothers.  Indeed  it  revealed  the  contrary. 
But  it  offered  to  make  all  men  brothers  by  bringing  them  into 
saving  connection  with  Christ. 

The  above  sketch  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Hellenistic 
age  has  been  quite  inadequate.  And  even  a  fuller  presentation 
could  hardly  do  justice  to  the  complexity  of  the  life  of  that 
time.  But  perhaps  some  common  misconceptions  have  been  cor- 
rected. The  pagan  world  at  the  time  when  Paul  set  sail  from 
Seleucia  on  his  first  missionary  journey  was  not  altogether 
without  religion.  Even  the  ancient  polytheism  was  by  no  means 
altogether  dead.  It  was  rather  a  day  of  religious  unrest.  The 
old  faiths  had  been  shaken,  but  they  were  making  room  for  the 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE    227 

new.  The  Orontes,  to  use  the  figure  of  Juvenal,  was  soon  to 
empty  into  the  Tiber.  The  flow  of  eastern  superstition  and 
eastern  mystical  religion  was  soon  to  spread  over  the  whole 
world. 

But  what  were  the  eastern  religions  which  in  the  second 
century  after  Christ,  if  not  before,  entered  upon  their  tri- 
umphal march  toward  the  west?  1  They  were  of  diverse  origin 
and  diverse  character.  But  one  feature  was  common  to  a  num- 
ber of  the  most  important  of  them.  Those  eastern  religions 
which  became  most  influential  in  the  later  Roman  Empire  were 
mystery  religions — that  is,  they  had  connected  with  them  secret 
rites  which  were  thought  to  afford  special  blessing  to  the 
initiates.  The  mysteries  did  not  indeed  constitute  the  whole  of 
the  worship  of  the  eastern  gods.  Side  by  side  with  the  mysteries 
were  to  be  found  public  cults  to  which  every  one  was  admitted. 
But  the  mysteries  are  of  special  interest,  because  it  was  they 
which  satisfied  most  fully  the  longing  of  the  Hellenistic  age 
for  redemption,  for  "salvation,"  for  the  attainment  of  a  higher 
nature. 

It  will  be  well,  therefore,  to  single  out  for  special  mention 
the  chief  of  the  mystery  religions — those  eastern  religions 
which  although  they  were  by  no  means  altogether  secret  did 
have  mysteries  connected  with  them. 

The  first  of  these  religions  to  be  introduced  into  Rome 
was  the  religion  of  the  Phrygian  Cybele,  the  "Great  Mother 
of  the  Gods."  2  In  204  B.C.,  in  the  dark  days  of  the  Cartha- 
ginian invasion,  the  black  meteoric  stone  of  Pessinus  was 
brought,  by  command  of  an  oracle,  to  Rome.  With  the  sacred 
stone  came  the  cult.  But  Rome  was  not  yet  ready  for  the 
barbaric  worship  of  the  Phrygian  goddess.  For  several  hun- 
dred years  the  cult  of  Cybele  was  kept  carefully  isolated  from 
the  life  of  the  Roman  people.  The  foreign  rites  were  supported 
by  the  authority  of  the  state,  but  they  were  conducted  alto- 
gether by  a  foreign  priesthood ;  no  Roman  citizen  was  allowed 
to  participate  in  them.  It  was  not  until  the  reign  of  Claudius 
(41-54  A.D.)  that  the  barrier  was  finally  broken  down. 

The  myth  of  Cybele  is  narrated  in  various   forms.     Ac- 

1The  sketch  which  follows  is  indebted  especially  to  Cumorrt,  Lea 
religions  orientates  dans  le  paganisme  romain,  2ieme  ed.,  1909  (English 
translation,  The  Oriental  Religions  in  Roman  Paganism,  1911). 

'For  the  religion  of  Cybele  and  Attis,  see  Showerman,  The  Great 
Mother  of  the  Gods,  1901;  Hepding,  Attis,  1903. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

cording  to  the  most  characteristic  form,  the  youthful  Attis, 
beloved  by  Cybele,  is  struck  with  madness  by  the  jealous  god- 
dess, deprives  himself  of  his  virility,  dies  through  his  own  mad 
act,  and  is  mourned  by  the  goddess.  The  myth  contains  no 
account  of  a  resurrection;  all  that  Cybele  is  able  to  obtain 
is  that  the  body  of  Attis  should  be  preserved,  that  his  hair 
should  continue  to  grow,  and  that  his  little  finger  should  move. 
The  cult  was  more  stable  than  the  myth.  No  doubt,  in- 
deed, even  the  cult  experienced  important  changes  in  the  course 
of  the  centuries.  At  the  beginning,  according  to  Hepding  and 
Cumont,  Cybele  was  a  goddess  of  the  mountain  wilds,  whose 
worship  was  similar  in  important  respects  to  that  of  Dionysus. 
With  Cybele  Attis  was  associated  at  an  early  time.  The 
Phrygian  worship  of  Cybele  and  Attis  was  always  of  a  wild, 
orgiastic  character,  and  the  frenzy  of  the  worshipers  culmi- 
nated even  in  the  act  of  self-mutilation.  Thus  the  eunuch- 
priests  of  Cybele,  the  "Galli,"  became  a  well-known  feature  of 
the  life  of  the  Empire.  But  the  Phrygian  cult  of  Cybele  and 
Attis  cannot  be  reconstructed  by  any  means  in  detail;  exten- 
sive information  has  been  preserved  only  about  the  worship  as 
it  was  carried  on  at  Rome.  And  even  with  regard  to  the  Ro- 
man cult,  the  sources  of  information  are  to  a  very  consid- 
erable extent  late.  It  is  not  certain,  therefore,  that  the  great 
spring  festival  of  Attis,  as  it  was  celebrated  in  the  last  period 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  was  an  unmodified  reproduction  of  the 
original  Phrygian  rites. 

The  Roman  festival  was  conducted  as  follows  r1  On 
March  15,  there  was  a  preliminary  festival.  On  March  22, 
the  sacred  pine-tree  was  felled  and  carried  in  solemn  proces- 
sion by  the  "Dendrophori"  into  the  temple  of  Cybele.  The 
pine-tree  appears  in  the  myth  as  the  tree  under  which  Attis 
committed  his  act  of  self-mutilation.  In  the  cult,  the  felling  of 
the  tree  is  thought  by  modern  scholars  to  represent  the  death  of 
the  god.  Hence  the  mourning  of  the  worshipers  was  connected 
with  the  tree.  March  24  was  called  the  "day  of  blood";  on 
this  day  the  mourning  for  the  dead  Attis  reached  its  climax. 
The  Galli  chastised  themselves  with  scourges  and  cut  them- 
selves with  knives — all  to  the  wild  music  of  the  drums  and 
cymbals  which  were  connected  especially  with  the  worship  of 
the  Phrygian  Mother.  On  this  day  also,  according  to  Hep- 
1  See  Hepding,  op.  cit.t  pp.  147-176, 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  229 

ding's  conjecture,  the  new  Galli  dedicated  themselves  to  the 
service  of  the  goddess  by  the  act  of  self-mutilation.  Finally, 
the  resurrection  or  epiphany  of  the  god  Attis  was  celebrated. 
This  took  place  perhaps  during  the  night  between-  March  24 
and  March  25.  But  Hepding  admits  that  the  time  is  not  di- 
rectly attested.  It  is  also  only  conjecture  when  a  famous 
passage  of  Firmicus  Maternus  (fourth  century  after  Christ) 
is  applied  to  the  worship  of  Attis  and  to  this  part  of  it.1 
But  the  conjecture  may  well  be  correct.  Firmicus  Maternus  2 
describes  a  festival  in  which  the  figure  of  a  god  rests  upon  a 
bier  and  is  lamented,  and  then  a  light  is  brought  in  and  the 
priest  exclaims,  "Be  of  good  courage,  ye  initiates,  since  the 
god  is  saved;  for  to  us  there  shall  be  salvation  out  of 
troubles."  3  Apparently  the  resurrection  of  the  god  is  here 
regarded  as  the  cause  of  the  salvation  of  the  worshipers ; 
the  worshipers  share  in  the  fortunes  of  the  god.  At  any 
rate,  March  25  in  the  Roman  Attis  festival  was  the  "Hilaria," 
a  day  of  rejoicing.  On  this  day,  the  resurrection  of  the  god 
was  celebrated.  March  26  was  a  day  of  rest ;  and  finally,  on 
March  27,  there  was  a  solemn  washing  of  the  sacred  images 
and  emblems. 

As  thus  described,  the  worship  of  Cybele  and  Attis  was, 
for  the  most  part  at  least,  public.  But  there  were  also  mys- 
teries connected  with  the  same  two  gods.  These  mysteries  ap- 
parently were  practised  in  the  East  before  the  cult  was  brought 
to  Rome.  But  the  eastern  form  of  their  celebration  is  quite  ob- 
scure, and  even  about  the  Roman  form  very  little  is  known. 
Connected  with  the  mysteries  was  some  sort  of  sacred  meal.4 
Firmicus  Maternus  has  preserved  the  formula:  "I  have  eaten 
from  the  drum;  I  have  drunk  from  the  cymbal;  I  have  become 
an  initiate  of  Attis."5  And  Clement  of  Alexandria  (about 
200  A.  D.)  also  connected  a  similar  formula  with  the  Phrygian 
mysteries:  "I  ate  from  the  drum;  I  drank  from  the  cymbal; 

1  Loisy  (Les  mystkres  pdiens  et  le  myst&re  chrttien,  1910,  p.  104)  prefers 
to  attach  the  passage  to   Osiris   rather   than  to  Attis. 

2  See  Hepding,  op.  tit.,  pp.  166,  167. 

8  Firmicus    Maternus,    De    error,    prof,    rel.,    xxii    (ed.    Ziegler,    1907) : 
dappelre  HIHTTCLL  TOV  dcov  atauff^kvov' 
ttTTOLi,  yap  rifjilv  e/c  irovaiv  oxoTTjpia. 
4  See  Hepding,  op.  cit.,  pp.  184-190. 

0  Firmicus  Maternus,  op.  cit.,  xviii :  ec  TVHTT&VOV  /Se/Spod/ca,  c/c 
ytyovo.  nvorrrjs  "Arrecos. 


230  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

I  carried  the  'kernos';  I  stole  into  the  bridal  chamber." 
The  significance  of  this  ritual  eating  and  drinking  is  not  clear. 
Certainly  it  would  be  rash  to  find  in  it  the  notion  of  new  birth 
or  sacramental  union  with  the  divine  nature.  Hepding  sug- 
gests that  it  meant  rather  the  entrance  of  the  initiate  into  the 
circle  of  .the  table-companions  of  the  god. 

The  actual  initiation  is  even  more  obscure  in  the  Attis 
mysteries  than  it  is  in  those  of  Eleusis ;  Hepding  admits  that 
his  reconstruction  of  the  details  of  the  mysteries  is  based 
largely  on  conjecture.  Possibly  in  the  formula  quoted  above 
from  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  words,  "I  stole  into  the  bridal 
chamber,"  indicate  that  there  was  some  sort  of  representation 
of  a  sacred  marriage;  but  other  interpretations  of  the  Greek 
words  are  possible.  Hepding  suggests  that  the  candidate 
entered  into  the  grotto,  descended  into  a  ditch  within  the 
grotto,  listened  to  lamentations  for  the  dead  god,  received  a 
blood-bath,  then  saw  a  wonderful  light,  and  heard  the  joyful 
words  quoted  above:  "Be  of  good  courage,  ye  initiates,  since 
the  god  is  saved;  for  to  us  shall  there  be  salvation  out  of 
troubles,"  and  finally  that  the  candidate  arose  out  of  the  ditch 
as  a  new  man  ("reborn  for  eternity")  or  rather  as  a  being 
identified  with  the  god.2 

According  to  this  reconstruction,  the  initiation  represented 
the  death  and  the  new  birth  of  the  candidate.  But  the  recon- 
struction is  exceedingly  doubtful,  and  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant features  of  it  are  attested  in  connection  with  the  Attis 
mysteries  if  at  all  only  in  very  late  sources.  Hepding  is  par- 
ticularly careful  to  admit  that  there  is  no  direct  documentary 
evidence  for  connecting  the  blood-bath  with  the  March  festival. 

This  blood-bath,  which  is  called  the  taurobolium,  requires 
special  attention.  The  one  who  received  it  descended  into  a  pit 
over  which  a  lattice-work  was  placed.  A  bull  was  slaughtered 
above  the  lattice-work,  and  the  blood  was  allowed  to  run 
through  into  the  pit,  where  the  recipient  let  it  saturate  his 
clothing  and  even  enter  his  nose  and  mouth  and  ears.  The 
result  was  that  the  recipient  was  "reborn  forever,"  or  else 
reborn  for  a  period  of  twenty  years,  after  which  the  rite  had 
to  be  repeated.  The  taurobolium  is  thought  to  have  signified 

1Clem.  Al.,  Protrepticu*,  ii.  15  (ed.  Stahlin,  1905):     l/c  TVHW&VOV  l<payov'  be 
KvufiaKov  tiTLov'  tKepvo<p6pr)<Ta'  vir6  T&V  iraffrdv  viredvv. 
a  Hepding,  op.  cit.,  pp.  196ff. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  231 

a  death  to  the  old  life  and  a  new  birth  into  a  higher,  divine 
existence.  But  it  is  not  perfectly  clear  that  it  had  that  sig- 
nificance in  the  East  and  in  the  early  period.  According  to 
Hepding,  the  taurobolium  was  in  the  early  period  a  mere 
sacrifice,  and  the  first  man  who  is  said  to  have  received  it  in 
the  sense  just  described  was  the  Emperor  Heliogabalus  (third 
century  after  Christ).  Other  scholars  refuse  to  accept  Hep- 
ding's  distinction  between  an  earlier  and  a  later  form  of  the  rite. 
But  the  matter  is  at  least  obscure,  and  it  would  be  exceedingly 
rash  to  attribute  pre-Christian  origin  to  the  developed  tauro- 
bolium as  it  appears  in  fourth-century  sources.  Indeed,  there 
seems  to  be  no  mention  of  any  kind  of  taurobolium  whatever 
before  the  second  century,1  and  Hepding  may  be  correct  in 
suggesting  that  possibly  the  fourth-century  practice  was  in- 
fluenced by  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  blood  of  Christ.2 

No  less  important  than  the  religion  of  Cybele  and  Attis 
was  the  Greco-Egyptian  religion  of  Isis  and  Osiris.  Isis  and 
Osiris  are  both  ancient  Egyptian  gods,  whose  worship,  in  modi- 
fied form,  was  carried  over  first  into  the  Greek  kingdom  of  the 
Ptolemies,  and  thence  into  the  remotest  bounds  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  The  myth  which  concerns  these  gods  is  reported  at 
length  in  Plutarch's  treatise,  "Concerning  Isis  and  Osiris." 
Briefly  it  is  as  follows:  Osiris,  the  brother  and  husband  of 
Isis,  after  ruling  in  a  beneficent  manner  over  the  Egyptians, 
is  plotted  against  by  his  brother  Typhon.  Finally  Typhon 
makes  a  chest  and  promises  to  give  it  to  any  one  who  exactly 
fits  it.  Osiris  enters  the  chest,  which  is  then  closed  by  Typhon 
and  thrown  into  the  Nile.  After  a  search,  Isis  finds  the  chest 
at  Byblos  on  the  coast  of  Phoenicia,  and  brings  it  back  to 
Egypt.  But  Typhon  succeeds  in  getting  possession  of  the 
body  of  Osiris  and  cuts  it  up  mto  fourteen  parts,  which  are 
scattered  through  Egypt.  Isis  goes  about  collecting  the  parts. 
Osiris  becomes  king  of  the  nether  world,  and  helps  his  son 
Horus  to  gain  a  victory  over  Typhon. 

The  worship  of  Isis  and  Osiris  was  prominent  in  ancient 
Egyptian  religion  long  before  the  entrance  of  Greek  influence. 
Osiris  was  regarded  as  the  ruler  over  the  dead,  and  as  such 
was  naturally  very  important  in  a  religion  in  which  supreme 
attention  was  given  to  a  future  life.  But  with  the  establish- 

1  Showerman,  op.  cit.,  p.  280. 

2  Hepding,  op.  cit.,  p.  200,  Anm.  7. 


232  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

ment  of  the  Ptolemaic  kingdom  at  about  300  B.  C.,  there  was 
an  important  modification  of  the  worship.  A  new  god,  Serapis, 
was  introduced,  and  was  closely  identified  with  Osiris.  The 
origin  of  the  name  Serapis  has  been  the  subject  of  much  dis- 
cussion and  is  still  obscure.  But  one  motive  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  new  divinity  (or  of  the  new  name  for  an  old  di- 
vinity) is  perfectly  plain.  Ptolemy  I  desired  to  unify  the 
Egyptian  and  the  Greek  elements  in  his  kingdom  by  providing 
a  cult  which  would  be  acceptable  to  both  and  at  the  same 
time  intensely  loyal  to  the  crown.  The  result  was  the  Greco- 
Egyptian  cult  of  Serapis  (Osiris)  and  Isis.  Here  is  to  be 
found,  then,  the  remarkable  phenomenon  of  a  religion  deliber- 
ately established  for  political  reasons,  which,  despite  its  arti- 
ficial origin,  became  enormously  successful.  Of  course,  the 
success  was  obtained  only  by  a  skillful  use  of  existing  beliefs, 
which  had  been  hallowed  in  Egyptian  usage  from  time  imme- 
morial, and  by  a  skillful  clothing  of  those  beliefs  in  forms 
acceptable  to  the  Greek  element  in  the  population. 

The  religion  of  Isis  and  Serapis  was,  as  Cumont  observes, 
entirely  devoid  of  any  established  system  of  theology  or  any 
very  lofty  ethics.  It  was  effective  rather  on  account  of  its 
gorgeous  ritual,  which  was  handed  down  from  generation  to 
generation  with  meticulous  accuracy,  and  on  account  of  the 
assurance  which  it  gave  of  a  blessed  immortality,  the  wor- 
shipers being  conceived  of  as  sharing  in  the  resuscitation 
which  Osiris  had  obtained.  The  worship  was  at  first  repulsive 
to  Roman  ideals  of  gravity,  but  effected  an  official  entrance 
into  the  city  in  the  reign  of  Caligula  (37-41  A.  D.).  In  the 
second  and  third  centuries  it  was  extended  over  the  whole  Em- 
pire. In  alliance  with  the  religion  of  Mithras  it  became  finally 
perhaps  the  most  serious  rival  of  Christianity. 

The  cult  was  partly  public  and  partly  private.  Prominent 
in  the  public  worship  were  the  solemn  opening  of  the  temple 
of  Isis  in  the  morning  and  the  solemn  closing  in  the  afternoon. 
Elaborate  care  was  taken  of  the  images  of  the  gods — the  gods 
being  regarded  as  dependent  upon  human  ministrations.  Be- 
sides the  rites  that  were  conducted  daily,  there  were  special 
festivals  like  the  spring  festival  of  the  "ship  of  Isis"  which  is 
brilliantly  described  by  Apuleius. 

But  it  is  the  mysteries  which  arouse  the  greatest  interest, 
especially  because  of  the  precious  source  of  information  about 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE 

them  which  is  found  in  the  eleventh  book  of  the  Metamorphoses 
of  Apuleius  (second  century  after  Christ).  In  this  book,  al- 
though the  secrets  of  the  mysteries  themselves  are  of  course 
not  revealed,  Apuleius  has  given  a  more  complete  and  orderly 
account  of  the  events  connected  with  an  initiation  than  is  to 
be  found  anywhere  else  in  ancient  literature.  The  hero  Lucius 
is  represented  first  as  waiting  for  a  summons  from  the  goddess 
Isis,  which  comes  with  miraculous  coincidence  independently 
to  him  and  to  the  priest  who  is  to  officiate  in  his  initiation. 
Then  Lucius  is  taken  into  the  temple  and  made  acquainted 
with  certain  mysterious  books,  and  also  washes  his  body  at 
the  nearest  baths.  This  washing  has  as  little  as  possible  the 
appearance  of  a  sacrament ;  evidently  it  was  not  intended  to 
produce  "regeneration"  or  anything  of  the  sort.1  The  pur- 
pose of  it  seems  to  have  been  cleanliness,  which  was  naturally 
regarded  as  a  preparation  for  the  holy  rite  that  was  to  follow. 
There  follows  a  ten  days'  period  of  fasting,  after  which  the 
day  of  initiation  arrives.  Lucius  is  taken  into  the  most  secret 
place  of  the  temple.  Of  what  happens  there  he  speaks  with 
the  utmost  reserve.  He  says,  however:  "I  came  to  the  limits 
of  death,  and  having  trod  the  threshold  of  Proserpine  and 
been  borne  through  all  the  elements  I  returned;  at  midnight 
I  saw  the  sun  shining  with  a  bright  light;  I  came  into  the 
presence  of  the  upper  and  nether  gods  and  adored  them  near 
at  hand."  2  It  is  often  supposed  that  these  words  indicate 
some  sort  of  mysterious  drama  or  vision,  which  marked  the 
death  of  the  initiate,  his  passage  through  the  elements,  and 
his  rising  to  a  new  life.  But  certainly  the  matter  is  very 
obscure.  The  next  morning  Lucius  is  clothed  with  gorgeous 
robes,  and  is  presented  to  the  gaze  of  the  multitude.  Appar- 
ently he  is  regarded  as  partaking  of  the  divine  nature.  Two 
other  initiations  of  Lucius  are  narrated,  one  of  them  being 
an  initiation  into  the  mysteries  of  Osiris,  as  the  first  had  been 
into  the  mysteries  of  Isis.  But  little  is  added  by  the  account 
of  these  later  experiences,  and  it  has  even  been  suggested  that 
the  multiplication  of  the  initiations  was  due  to  the  self-interest 

1  But  compare  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery-Religions,  1913,  p.  229. 

'Apuleius,  Metam,.,  xi.  23  (ed.  Van  der  Vliet,  1897,  p.  270):  "Accessi 
confinium  mortis  et  calcato  Proserpinae  limine  per  omnia  vectus  elementa 
remeavi;  nocte  media  vidi  solem  candido  coruscantem  lumine;  deos  inferos 
et  deos  superos  accessi  coram  et  adoravi  de  proxumo." 


234  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  priests  rather  than  to  any  real  advantage  for  the 
initiate. 

Similar  in  important  respects  to  the  Egyptian  Osiris  was 
the  Adonis  of  Phoenicia,  who  may  therefore  be  mentioned  in 
the  present  connection,  even  though  little  is  known  about  mys- 
teries connected  with  his  worship.  According  to  the  well- 
known  myth,  the  youth  Adonis,  beloved  by  Aphrodite,  was 
killed  by  a  wild  boar,  and  then  bemoaned  by  the  goddess.  The 
cult  of  Adonis  was  found  in  various  places,  notably  at  Byblos 
in  Phoenicia,  where  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  god 
were  celebrated.  With  regard  to  this  double  festival,  Lucian 
says  in  his  treatise  "On  the  Syrian  Goddess":  "They  [the 
inhabitants  of  Byblos]  assert  that  the  legend  about  Adonis 
and  the  wild  boar  is  true,  and  that  the  facts  occurred  in  their 
country,  and  in  memory  of  this  calamity  they  beat  their 
breasts  and  wail  every  year,  and  perform  their  secret  ritual 
amid  signs  of  mourning  through  the  whole  countryside.  When 
they  have  finished  their  mourning  and  wailing,  they  sacrifice 
in  the  first  place  to  Adonis,  as  to  one  who  has  departed  this 
life:  after  this  they  allege  that  he  is  alive  again,  and  exhibit 
his  effigy  to  the  sky."  x  The  wailing  for  Adonis  at  Byblos 
is  similar  to  what  is  narrated  about  the  worship  of  the  Baby- 
lonian god  Tammuz.  Even  the  Old  Testament  mentions  in  a 
noteworthy  passage  "the  women  weeping  for  Tammuz"  (Ezek. 
viii.  14).  But  the  Tammuz-worship  does  not  seem  to  have  con- 
tained any  celebration  of  a  resurrection. 

Attis,  Osiris,  and  Adonis  are  alike  in  that  all  of  them  are 
apparently  represented  as  dying  and  coming  to  life  again. 
They  are  regarded  by  Bruckner 2  and  many  other  modern 
scholars  as  representing  the  widespread  notion  of  a  "dying 
and  rising  saviour-god."  But  it  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note 
that  the  "resurrection"  of  these  gods  is  very  different  from 
what  is  meant  by  that  word  in  Christian  belief.  The  myth  of 
Attis,  for  example,  contains  no  mention  of  a  resurrection; 
though  apparently  the  cult,  in  which  mourning  is  followed 
by  gladness,  did  presuppose  some  such  notion.  In  the  myth 
of  Osiris,  also,  there  is  nothing  that  could  be  called  resurrec- 
tion ;  after  his  passion  the  god  becomes  ruler,  not  over  the  liv- 

1  Lucian,  De  dea  syria,  6,  translation  of  Garstang  (The  Syrian  Goddess, 
1913,  pp.  45f.). 
*Der  sterbende  und  auferstehende  Gottheilcmd,  1908. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  255 

ing,  but  over  the  dead.  In  Lucian's  description  of  the  worship 
of  Adonis  at  Byblos,  there  is  perhaps  as  clear  an  account  as 
is  to  be  found  anywhere  of  the  celebration  of  the  dying  and 
resuscitation  of  a  god,  but  even  in  this  account  there  is  not 
strictly  speaking  a  resurrection.  A  tendency  is  found  in  cer- 
tain recent  writers  to  exaggerate  enormously  the  prevalence 
and  the  clarity  of  the  pagan  ideas  about  a  dying  and  rising 
god. 

According  to  a  common  opinion,  Attis,  Osiris,  and  Adonis 
are  vegetation-gods ;  their  dying  and  resuscitation  represent, 
then,  the  annual  withering  and  revival  of  vegetation.  This 
hypothesis  has  attained  general,  though  not  universal,  accept- 
ance. Certainly  the  facts  are  very  complex.  At  any  rate, 
the  celebration  of  the  principle  of  fecundity  in  nature  was 
not  of  a  purely  agrarian  character,  but  found  expression  also 
in  the  gross  symbols  and  immoral  practices  which  appear  in 
connection  with  the  gods  just  mentioned  at  various  points  in 
the  ancient  world. 

The  most  important  of  the  religions  which  have  just  been 
examined  had  their  rise  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Egypt.  No  less 
important,  at  least  in  the  last  period  of  pagan  antiquity,  was 
the  religious  influence  of  Syria.  The  Syrian  gods,  called 
"Baals"  ("Lords"),  were  not,  according  to  Cumont,  distin- 
guished from  one  another  by  any  clearly  defined  character- 
istics. Every  locality  had  its  own  Baal  and  a  female  divinity 
as  the  Baal's  consort,  but  the  attributes  of  these  local  gods 
were  of  the  vaguest  character.  The  female  divinity  Atargatis, 
whose  temple  at  Hierapolis  is  described  by  Lucian,  and  the 
male  divinity  Hadad,  of  Heliopolis,  are  among  the  best-known 
of  the  Syrian  gods.  The  Syrian  worship  was  characterized 
by  especially  immoral  and  revolting  features,  but  seems  to 
have  become  ennobled  by  the  introduction  of  the  Babylonian 
worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  thus  contributed  to  the 
formation  of  the  solar  monotheism  which  was  the  final  form 
assumed  by  the  pagan  religion  of  the  Empire  before  the  tri- 
umph of  Christianity. 

In  point  of  intrinsic  worth,  the  Persian  mystery  religion 
of  Mithras  is  easily  superior  to  any  of  the  religions  which 
have  thus  far  been  mentioned,  but  it  is  of  less  importance  than 
some  of  the  others  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  investiga- 
tion, since  it  became  influential  in  the  Roman  Empire  only 


236  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

after  the  time  of  Paul.  Great  stress  has  indeed  been  laid  upon 
the  fact  that  Plutarch  attests  the  practice  of  Mithraic  mys- 
teries by  the  pirates  whom  Pompey  conquered  in  the  middle 
of  the  first  century  before  Christ,  and  says  furthermore  that 
the  Mithraic  rites  begun  by  the  pirates  were  continued  until 
the  writer's  own  day.1  The  pirates  practised  their  rites 
at  Olympus,  which  is  on  the  southern  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  But 
the  Olympus  which  is  meant  is  in  Lycia,  some  three  hundred 
miles  from  Tarsus.  It  is  a  mistake,  therefore,  to  bring  the 
Mithraic  mysteries  of  the  pirates  into  any  close  geographical 
connection  with  the  boyhood  home  of  Paul.  Against  the 
hypothesis  of  any  dependence  of  Paul  upon  the  mysteries  of 
Mithras  is  to  be  placed  the  authority  of  Cumont,  the  chief 
investigator  in  this  field,  who  says:  "It  is  impossible  to  sup- 
pose that  at  that  time  [the  time  of  Paul]  there  was  an  imita- 
tion of  the  Mithraic  mysteries,  which  then  had  not  yet  attained 
any  importance."  2  Attemp's  have  often  been  made  to  ex- 
plain away  this  judgment  of  Cumont,  but  without  success.  The 
progress  of  Mithraism  in  the  Empire  seems  to  have  been  due 
to  definite  political  causes  which  were  operative  only  after 
Paul's  day. 

The  Persian  religion,  from  which  Mithraism  was  descended, 
was  superior  to  the  others  which  have  just  been  considered  in 
its  marked  ethical  character.  It  presented  the  doctrine  of  a 
mighty  conflict  between  light  and  darkness,  between  good  and 
evil.  And  Mithraism  itself  regarded  religion  under  the  figure 
of  a  warfare.  It  appealed  especially  to  the  soldiers,  and  only 
men  (not  women)  were  admitted  to  its  mysteries.  There  were 
seven  grades  of  initiation,  each  with  its  special  name.  The 
highest  grade  was  that  of  "father."  The  Mithras  cult  was 
always  celebrated  underground,  in  chambers  of  very  limited 
extent.  There  was  a  sacred  meal,  consisting  of  bread  and 
water,  which  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, regards  as  having  been  instituted  through  demoniac  imi- 
tation of  the  Christian  Eucharist.3  This  religion  of  Mithras 
finally  became,  with  the  religion  of  Isis,  the  most  serious  rival 
of  Christianity.  But  at  the  time  of  Paul  it  was  without  im- 

1  Plutarch,  Vita  Pompei,  24. 

8  Cumont,  op.  cit.,  p.  xvi   (English  Translation,  p.  xx). 

•Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  66. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  237 

portance,  and  could  not  have  exerted  any  influence  upon  the 
apostle. 

But  the  religion  of  the  Hellenistic  age  was  not  limited  to 
the  individual  cults  which  have  just  been  considered,  and  it 
is  not  chiefly  to  the  individual  cults  that  recourse  is  had  by 
those  modern  scholars  who  would  derive  Paulinism  from  pagan 
sources.  Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  syncretism  of 
the  age ;  various  religions  were  mingled  in  a  limitless  variety 
of  combinations.  And  there  was  also  a  mingling  of  religion 
with  philosophy.  It  is  in  the  manifold  products  of  this  union 
between  Greek  philosophy  and  oriental  religion  that  the  genesis 
of  Paulinism  is  now  often  being  sought.  Not  oriental  religion 
in  its  original  state,  but  oriental  religion  already  to  some  ex- 
tent Hellenized,  is  thought  to  have  produced  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  religion  of  Paul. 

The  hypothesis  is  faced  by  one  obvious  difficulty.  The 
difficulty  appears  in  the  late  date  of  most  of  the  sources  of 
information.  In  order  to  reconstruct  that  Hellenized  oriental 
mysticism  from  which  the  religion  of  Paul  is  to  be  derived,  the 
investigator  is  obliged  to  appeal  to  sources  which  are  long 
subsequent  to  Paul's  day.  For  example,  in  reproducing  the 
spiritual  atmosphere  in  which  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  lived, 
no  testimony  is  more  often  evoked  than  the  words  of  Firmicus 
Maternus,  "Be  of  good  courage,  ye  initiates,  since  the  god 
is  saved ;  for  to  us  there  shall  be  salvation  out  of  troubles."  * 
Plere,  it  is  thought,  is  to  be  found  that  connection  between  the 
resurrection  of  the  god  and  the  salvation  of  the  believers 
which  appears  in  the  Pauline  idea  of  dying  and  rising  with 
Christ.  But  the  trouble  is  that  Firmicus  Maternus  lived  in 
the  fourth  century  after  Christ,  three  hundred  years  later 
than  Paul.  With  what  right  can  an  utterance  of  his  be  used 
in  the  reconstruction  of  pre-Christian  paganism?  What  would 
be  thought,  by  the  same  scholars  who  quote  Firmicus  Maternus 
so  confidently  as  a  witness  to  first-century  paganism,  of  a 
historian  who  should  quote  a  fourth-century  Christian  writer 
as  a  wi!ness  to  first-century  Christianity? 

This  objection  has  been  met  by  the  modern  school  of  com- 
parative religion  somewhat  as  follows.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  said,  the  .post-Christian  pagan  usage  which  at  any  time 
1  See  above,  p.  229,  with  footnote  3. 


238  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

may  be  under  investigation  is  plainly  not  influenced  by  Chris- 
tianity. But,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  too  similar  to  Christian 
usage  for  the  similarity  to  be  explained  by  mere  coincidence. 
Therefore,  in  the  third  place,  since  it  is  not  dependent  upon 
Christian  usage,  Christian  usage  must  be  dependent  upon 
it,  and  therefore  despite  its  late  attestation  it  must  have  existed 
in  pre-Christian  times. 

A  little  reflection  will  reveal  the  precarious  character  of 
this  reasoning.  Every  step  is  uncertain.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  often  by  no  means  clear  that  the  pagan  usage  has  not  been 
influenced  by  Christianity.  The  Church  did  not  long  remain 
obscure;  even  early  in  the  second  century,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Pliny,  it  was  causing  the  heathen  temples  to  be 
deserted.  What  is  more  likely  than  that  in  an  age  of  syncre- 
tism the  adherents  of  pagan  religion  should  borrow  weapons 
from  so  successful  a  rival?  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
paganism  of  the  Hellenistic  age  had  elevated  syncretism  to  a 
system;  it  had  absolutely  no  objection  of  principle  against 
receiving  elements  from  every  source.  In  the  Christian  Church, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  was  a  strong  objection  to  such  pro- 
cedure; Christianity  from  the  beginning  was  like  Judaism  in 
being  exclusive.  It  regarded  with  the  utmost  abhorrence  any- 
thing that  was  tainted  by  a  pagan  origin.  This  abhorrence, 
at  least  in  the  early  period,  more  than  overbalanced  the  fact 
that  the  Christians  for  the  most  part  had  formerly  been 
pagans,  so  that  it  might  be  thought  natural  for  them  to  retain 
something  of  pagan  belief.  Conversion  involved  a  passionate 
renunciation  of  former  beliefs.  Such,  at  any  rate,  was  clearly 
the  kind  of  conversion  that  was  required  by  Paul. 

In  the  second  place,  the  similarity  between  the  pagan  and 
the  Christian  usages  is  often  enormously  exaggerated;  some- 
times a  superficial  similarity  of  language  masks  the  most  pro- 
found differences  of  underlying  meaning.  Illustrations  will 
be  given  in  the  latter  part  of  the  present  chapter. 

Thus  the  conclusion  is,  to  say  the  least,  precarious.  It 
is  by  no  means  so  easy  as  is  sometimes  supposed  to  prove  that 
a  pagan  usage  attested  only  long  after  the  time  of  Paul  is  really 
the  source  of  Pauline  teaching.  And  it  will  not  help  to  say 
that  although  there  is  no  direct  dependence  one  way  or  the 
other  yet  the  pagan  and  the  Pauline  teaching  have  a  common 
source.  For  to  say  that  a  usage  has  a  pagan  source  several 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  239 

centuries  earlier  than  the  time  at  which  the  usage  is  first  at- 
tested is  really  to  assume  the  point  that  is  to  be  proved.  We 
are  not  here  dealing  with  a  question  of  literary  dependence, 
where  the  unity  of  the  books  which  are  being  compared  is 
assumed.  In  such  a  question  the  independence  of  the  two 
writers  may  be  proved  by  the  general  comparison  of  the  books ; 
it  may  be  shown,  in  other  words,  that  if  one  author  had  used 
the  other  author's  work  at  all  he  would  have  had  to  use  it 
a  great  deal  more  than  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  similarity  would 
indicate.  In  such  cases,  striking  verbal  similarity  in  one  place 
may  prove  that  both  books  were  dependent  upon  a  common 
source.  But  if  a  pagan  usage  of  the  fourth  century  is  similar 
to  a  Christian  usage,  the  fact  that  in  general  the  paganism 
of  the  fourth  century  is  independent  of  Christianity  does  not 
disprove  dependence  of  paganism  upon  Christianity  at  this  one 
point. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  reasoning  just 
outlined  is  usually  supplemented  by  a  further  consideration. 
It  is  maintained,  namely,  that  the  mystic  piety  of  paganism 
forms  to  some  extent  a  unit;  it  was  not  a  mere  fortuitous 
collection  of  beliefs  and  practices,  but  was  like  an  enveloping 
spiritual  atmosphere  of  which,  despite  variations  of  humidity 
and  temperature,  the  fundamental  composition  was  everywhere 
the  same.  If,  therefore,  the  presence  of  this  atmosphere  of 
mystical  piety  can  be  established  here  and  there  in  sources  of 
actually  pre-Christian  date,  the  investigator  has  a  right  to 
determine  the  nature  of  the  atmosphere  in  detail  by  drawing 
upon  later  sources.  In  other  words,  the  mystical  religion  of 
the  Hellenistic  age  is  reconstructed  in  detail  by  the  use  of 
post-Christian  sources,  and  then  (the  essential  unity  of  the 
phenomenon  being  assumed)  the  early  date  of  this  oriental 
mystical  religion  is  established  by  the  scanty  references  in 
pre-Christian  times.  It  is  admitted,  perhaps,  that  the  elements 
of  oriental  mysticism  actually  found  in  pre-Christian  sources 
would  not  be  sufficient  to  prove  dependence  of  Paul  upon  that 
type  of  religion ;  but  the  elements  found  in  later  sources  are 
thought  to  be  so  closely  allied  to  those  which  happen  to  have 
early  attestation  that  they  too  must  be  supposed  to  have  been 
present  in  the  early  period,  and  since  they  are  similar  to  Paul- 
inism  they  must  have  exerted  a  formative  influence  upon  Paul's 
religion.  To  put  the  matter  briefly,  the  nature  of  Hellenized 


240  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

oriental  religion  is  established  by  post-Pauline  sources ;  whereas 
the  early  origin  of  that  religion  is  established  by  the  scanty 
pre-Christian  references. 

This  procedure  constitutes  a  curious  reversal  of  the  pro- 
cedure which  is  applied  by  the  very  same  scholars  to  Chris- 
tianity. Christianity  is  supposed  to  have  undergone  kaleido- 
scopic changes  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  or  even  months, 
changes  involving  a  transformation  of  its  inmost  nature;  yet 
pagan  religion  is  apparently  thought  to  have  remained  from 
age  to  age  the  same.  When  Paul,  only  a  few  years  after  the 
origin  of  the  Church,  says  that  he  "received"  certain  funda- 
mental elements  in  his  religion,  the  intimate  connection  of  those 
elements  with  the  rest  of  the  Pauline  system  is  not  allowed  to 
establish  the  early  origin  of  the  whole;  yet  the  paganism  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries  is  thought  to  have  constituted 
such  a  unity  that  the  presence  of  certain  elements  of  it  in  the 
pre-Christian  period  is  regarded  as  permitting  the  whole  sys- 
tem to  be  transplanted  bodily  to  that  early  time. 

Of  course,  the  hypothesis  which  is  now  being  examined  is 
held  in  many  forms,  and  is  being  advocated  with  varying  de- 
grees of  caution.  Some  of  its  advocates  might  defend  them- 
selves against  the  charge  of  transplanting  post-Christian 
paganism  bodily  into  the  pre-Christian  period.  They  might 
point  to  special  evidence  with  regard  to  many  details.  Such 
evidence  would  have  to  be  examined  in  any  complete  investiga- 
tion. But  the  objection  just  raised,  despite  possible  answers 
to  it  in  detail,  is  not  without  validity.  It  remains  true,  despite 
all  reservations,  that  adherents  of  the  "comparative-religion 
school"  are  entirely  too  impatient  with  regard  to  questions  of 
priority.  They  are  indeed  very  severe  upon  those  who  raise 
such  questions.  They  do  not  like  having  the  flow  of  their 
thought  checked  by  so  homely  a  thing  as  a  date.  But  dates 
sometimes  have  their  importance.  For  example,  the  phrase, 
"reborn  for  eternity,"  occurs  in  connection  with  the  blood- 
bath of  the  taurobolium.  How  significant,  it  might  be  said, 
is  this  connection  of  regeneration  with  the  shedding  of  blood ! 
How  useful  as  establishing  the  pagan  origin  of  the  Christian 
idea !  From  the  confident  way  in  which  the  phrase  "reborn 
for  eternity"  is  quoted  in  discussions  of  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity, or.e  would  think  that  its  pre-Christian  origin  were 
established  beyond  peradventure.  It  may  come  as  a  shock, 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  24,1 

therefore,  to  readers  of  recent  discussions  to  be  told  that  as 
a  matter  of  fact  the  phrase  does  not  appear  until  the  fourth 
century,  when  Christianity  was  taking  its  place  as  the  estab- 
lished religion  of  the  Roman  world.  If  there  is  any  dependence, 
it  is  certainly  dependence  of  the  taurobolium  upon  Christianity, 
and  not  of  Christianity  upon  the  taurobolium. 

The  same  lordly  disregard  of  dates  runs  all  through  the 
modern  treatment  of  the  history  of  religion  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment period.  It  is  particularly  unfortunate  in  popular  expo- 
sitions. When  the  lay  reader  is  overwhelmed  by  an  imposing 
array  of  citations  from  Apuleius  and  from  Lucian,  to  say 
nothing  of  Firmicus  Maternus  and  fourth-century  inscrip- 
tions, and  when  these  late  citations  are  confidently  treated 
by  men  of  undoubted  learning  as  witnesses  to  pre-Christian 
religion,  and  when  the  procedure  is  rendered  more  plausible  by 
occasional  references  to  pre-Christian  writers  which  if  looked 
up  would  be  found  to  prove  nothing  at  all,  and  when  there 
is  a  careful  avoidance  of  anything  like  temporal  arrangement 
of  the  material,  but  citations  derived  from  all  countries  and 
all  ages  are  brought  together  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
environment  of  Paul — under  such  treatment  the  lay  reader 
often  receives  the  impression  that  something  very  important 
is  being  proved.  The  impression  would  be  corrected  by  the 
mere  introduction  of  a  few  dates,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  oriental  religion  undoubtedly  entered  upon  a  remark- 
able expansion  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  New  Testament 
period,  so  that  conditions  prevailing  after  that  expansion  are 
by  no  means  necessarily  to  be  regarded  as  having  existed  be- 
fore the  expansion  took  place. 

This  criticism  is  here  intended  to  be  taken  only  in  a  pro- 
visional way.  The  justice  of  it  can  be  tested  only  by  a  detailed 
examination  of  the  hypothesis  against  which  the  criticism  is 
directed. 

How,  then,  is  the  pre-Christian  mystical  religion  of  the 
Hellenistic  world  to  be  reconstructed?  What  sources  are  to 
be  used?  Some  of  the  sources  have  already  been  touched  upon 
in  the  review  of  the  individual  oriental  cults.  And  incidentally 
the  unsatisfactory  character  of  some  of  these  sources  has 
already  appeared.  But  it  is  now  necessary  to  examine  other 
sources  which  are  not  so  definitely  connected  with  any  clearly 
defined  cult. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Increasing  attention  has  been  paid  in  recent  years  to  the 
complex  of  writings  which  goes   under  the  name  of  Hermes 
Trismegistus.     These  Hermetic  writings   embrace  not  only  a 
corpus  of  some  fourteen  tractates  which  has  been  preserved 
in  continuous  Greek  manuscript  form,  but  also  fragments  con- 
tained in  the  works  of  Stobaeus  and  other  writers,  and  finally 
the   "Asclepius"    attributed   to   Apuleius.      It   is   not   usually 
maintained  that  the  Hermetic  literature  was  completed  before 
about  300  A.D. ;  no   one   claims   anything  like  pre-Christian 
origin  for  the  whole.     The  individual  elements  of  the  litera- 
ture— for  example,  the  individual  tractates  of  the  Hermetic 
corpus — are  usually  regarded  as  having  been  produced  at  vari- 
ous  times;  but  no  one  of  them  is  generally  thought  to  have 
been  written  before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.     With 
regard   to   the   most   important   tractate,   the   "Poimandres," 
which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  corpus,  opinions  differ 
somewhat.     J.  Kroll,  for  example,  the  author  of  the  leading 
monograph  on  the  Hermetic  writings,  regards  the  Poimandres 
as  the  latest  of  the  tractates  in  the  corpus,   and  as  having 
appeared  not  before  the  time  of  Numenius  (second  half  of  the 
second  century)  ;  x  whereas  Zielinski  regards  it  as  the  earliest 
writing  of  the  corpus.2     By  an  ingenious  argument,  Reitzen- 
stein    attempts    to    prove    that    the    Christian    "Shepherd    of 
Hermes"   (middle  of  the  second  century)   is  dependent  upon 
an  original  form  of  the  "Poimandres."  3     But  his  argument 
has  not  obtained  any  general  consent.    It  is  impossible  to  push 
the  material  of  the  Poimandres  back  into  the  first  century — 
certainly  impossible  by  any  treatment  of  literary  relationships. 
With  regard  to  the  origin   of  the  ideas  in  the  Hermetic 
writings,  there  is  considerable  difference  of  opinion.     Reitzen- 
stein  allows  a  large  place  to  Egyptian  and  Persian  elements ; 
other  scholars   emphasize  rather  the  influence  of  Greek  phi- 
losophy, which  of  course  is  in  turn  thought  to  have  been  modi- 
fied  by   its    contact    with    oriental    religion.      J.    Kroll,4    W. 
Kroll,5     Reitzenstein,6     and     others     deny     emphatically     the 

*J.  Kroll,  Die  Lehren  des  Hermes  Trismegistos,  1914,  in  Beitrage  zur 
Oeschichte  der  Philosophic  des  Mittelalters,  xii.  2-4,  pp.  388,  389. 

a  Zielinski,  "Hermes  und  die  Hermetik,"  in  Archiv  fur  Religionswissen- 
schaft,  viii,  1905,  p.  323. 

•Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  1904,  pp.   10-13. 

4  Op.  tit. 

8  Article  "Hermes  Trismegistos,"  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  ReaLEncyclopadie 
der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft,  xv,  1912,  pp.  791-823. 

6  Op.  tit. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  243 

presence  of  any  considerable  Christian  influence  in  Hermes ; 
but  at  this  point  Heinrici,  after  particularly  careful  researches, 
differs  from  the  customary  view.1  Windisch  is  enough  im- 
pressed by  Heinrici's  arguments  to  confess  that  Christian 
literature  may  have  influenced  the  present  form  of  the  Her- 
metic writings  here  and  there,  but  insists  that  the  Christian 
influence  upon  Hermes  is  altogether  trifling  compared  to  the 
influence  upon  primitive  Christianity  of  the  type  of  religion 
of  which  Hermes  is  an  example.2  The  true  state  of  the  case, 
according  to  Windisch,  is  probably  that  Christianity  first  re- 
ceived from  oriental  religion  the  fundamental  ideas,  and  then 
gave  back  to  oriental  religion  as  represented  by  Hermes  certain 
forms  of  expression  in  which  those  ideas  had  been  clothed. 
At  the  same  time  Windisch  urges  careful  attention  to  Hein- 
rici's argument  for  Christian  influence  upon  Hermes  for  three 
reasons :  ( 1 )  all  Hermetic  writings  are  later  than  the  New 
Testament  period,  (2)  the  Hermetic  writings  are  admittedly 
influenced  by  Judaism,  (3)  at  least  the  latest  stratum  in  the 
Hermetic  writings  has  admittedly  passed  through  the  Christian 
sphere.  These  admissions,  coming  from  one  who  is  very  friendly 
to  the  modern  method  of  comparative  religion,  are  significant. 
When  even  Windisch  admits  that  the  form  of  expression  with 
regard  to  the  new  birth  in  the  Poimandres  may  possibly  be 
influenced  by  the  Gospel  tradition,  and  that  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Hermetic  tractate,  for  example,  was  somewhat  familiar 
with  New  Testament  writings  or  Christian  ideas  and  "assimi- 
lated Christian  terminology  to  his  gnosis,"  and  that  the  term 
"faith"  has  possibly  come  into  Hermes  (iv  and  ix)  from  Chris- 
tian tradition — in  the  light  of  these  admissions  it  may  appear 
how  very  precarious  is  the  employment  of  Hermes  Trisme- 
gistus  as  a  witness  to  pre-Christian  paganism. 

Opinions  diifer,  moreover,  as  to  the  importance  of  the 
Hermetic  type  of  thought  in  the  life  of  the  ancient  world. 
Reitzenstein  exalts  its  importance;  he  believes  that  back  of 
the  Hermetic  writings  there  lies  a  living  religion,  and  that 
this  Hermetic  type  of  religion  was  characteristic  of  the  Hel- 
lenistic age.  At  this  point  Cumont  and  others  are  in  sharp 
disagreement;  Cumont  believes  that  in  the  West  Hermetism 
had  nothing  more  than  a  literary  existence  and  did  not  pro- 

1  Heinrici,  Die  Hermes-Mystik  und  das  Neue  Testament,  1918. 

2  Windisch,    "Urchristentum   und    Hermesmystik,"   in    Theologisch    Tijd- 
schrift,  lii,  1918,  pp.  186-240. 


244          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

duce  a  Hermetic  sect,  and  that  in  general  Reitzenstein  has 
greatly  exaggerated  the  Hermetic  influence.1  With  regard 
to  this  controversy,  it  can  at  least  be  said  that  Reitzenstein 
has  failed  to  prove  his  point. 

Detailed  exposition  of  the  Hermetic  writings  will  here  be 
impossible.  A  number  of  recent  investigators  have  covered 
the  field  with  some  thoroughness.  Unfortunately  a  complete 
modern  critical  edition  of  the  Hermetic  corpus  is  still  lacking; 
the  student  is  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  edition  of  Parthey 
(1854),2  which  is  not  complete  and  does  not  quite  measure 
up  to  modern  standards.  Reitzenstein  has  included  in  his 
"Poimandres"  (1904)  a  critical  edition  of  Tractates  I,  XIII, 
XVI,  XVII,  XVIII.  There  has  been  no  collection,  in  the 
original  languages,  of  all  the  Hermetic  writings  (including 
those  outside  of  the  corpus),  though  Menard  has  provided  a 
French  translation,3  and  Mead  an  English  translation  with 
elaborate  introduction  and  notes.4  The  work  of  Mead,  which 
is  published  by  the  Theosophical  Publishing  Society,  is  not 
usually  regarded  as  quite  satisfactory.  But  the  translation 
at  least  will  be  found  exceedingly  useful.  The  systematic  expo- 
sition of  the  thought  of  the  Hermetic  writings  by  J.  Kroll  is 
clear  and  instructive;5  and  Heinrici,  who  differs  from  Kroll 
in  treating  the  individual  writings  separately,  has  also  made  a 
valuable  contribution  to  the  subject.6 

In  the  Hermetic  tractates  I  and  XIII,  upon  which  Reit- 
zenstein lays  the  chief  emphasis,  there  is  presented  a  notion 
of  the  transformation  of  the  one  who  receives  divine  revela- 
tion. The  transformation,  as  in  the  Hermetic  writings  gen- 
erally, is  for  the  most  part  independent  of  ceremonies  or  sac- 
raments. An  experience  which  in  the  mysteries  is  connected 
with  an  initiation  involving  an  appeal  to  the  senses  here  seems 
to  have  been  spiritualized  under  the  influence  of  philosophy; 
regeneration  comes  not  through  a  mystic  drama  or  the  like 
but  through  an  inner  experience.  Such  at  least  is  a  common 

'Cumont,  op.  cit.,  pp.  340,  341    (English  Translation,  pp.  233,  234,  note 

a  Parthey,  Hermetis  Trismegisti  Poemander,  1854. 
«M£nard,  Hermes   Trismtgiste,  1910. 
4  Mead,   Thrice-Greatest  Hermes,  three  volumes,   1906. 
'Op.  cit.     Cf.  the  review  by  Bousset,  in  Oottingische  gelehrte  Anzeigen, 
clxxvi,  1914,  pp.  697-755. 
'O.  cit. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  245 

modern  interpretation  of  the  genesis  of  the  Hermetic  doctrine. 
At  any  rate,  it  seems  to  be  impossible  to  reduce  that  doctrine 
to  anything  like  a  consistent  logical  scheme.  Reitzenstein 
has  tried  to  bring  order  out  of  chaos  by  distinguishing  in 
the  first  tractate  two  originally  distinct  views  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  world  and  of  man,  but  his  analysis  has  not  won  general 
acceptance.  It  must  probably  be  admitted,  however,  that  the 
Hermetic  literature  has  received  elements  from  various  sources 
and  has  not  succeeded  in  combining  them  in  any  consistent  way. 

The  student  who  will  first  read  Tractates  I  and  XIII  for 
himself  will  probably  be  surprised  when  he  is  told  (for  example 
by  Reitzenstein)  that  here  is  to  be  found  the  spiritual  atmos- 
phere from  which  Paulinism  came.  For  there  could  be  no 
sharper  contrast  than  that  between  the  fantastic  speculations 
of  the  Poimandres  and  the  historical  gospel  of  Paul.  Both 
the  Poimandres  and  Paul  have  some  notion  of  a  transforma- 
tion that  a  man  experiences  through  a  divine  revelation.  But 
the  transformation,  according  to  Paul,  comes  through  an 
account  of  what  had  happened  but  a  few  years  before.  Nothing 
could  possibly  be  more  utterly  foreign  to  Hermes.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  result  of  the  transformation  in  Hermes  is 
deification.  "This,"  says  Hermes  (Tractate  I,  26),  "is  the 
good  end  to  those  who  have  received  knowledge,  to  be  dei- 
fied." Paul  could  never  have  used  such  language.  For, 
according  to  Paul,  the  relation  between  the  believer  and  the 
Christ  who  has  transformed  him  is  a  personal  relation  of  love. 
The  "Christ-mysticism"  of  Paul  is  never  pantheistic.  It  is 
indeed  supernatural;  it  is  not  produced  by  any  mere  influence 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  old  life.  But  the  result,  far  from 
being  apotheosis,  is  personal  communion  of  a  man  with  his  God. 

In  connection  with  Hermes  Trismegistus  may  be  mentioned 
the  so-called  Oracula  Chaldaica,  which  apparently  sprang 
from  the  same  general  type  of  thought.2  These  Oracula 
Chaldaica,  according  to  W.  Kroll,  constitute  a  document  of 
heathen  gnosis,  which  was  produced  about  200  A.  D.  Although 
Kroll  believes  that  there  is  here  no  Christian  influence,  and 
that  Jewish  influence  touches  not  the  center  but  only  the  cir- 
cumference, yet  for  the  reasons  already  noticed  it  would  be 

1  TOVTO  e<TTi  TO  ayaBov  reXos  TOIS  yvfaaw  €<Txt)Ko<ri,  0(.a}6rjvai. 

2  See  W.  Kroll,  De  Oraculis  Chaldaicis,  1894;  "Die  chaldaischen  Orakel," 
in  Rheinisches  Museum  filr  Philologie,  1,   1895,  pp.  636-639. 


246          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

precarious  to  use  a  document  of  200  A.D.  in  reconstructing 
pre-Pauline  paganism. 

A  very  important  source  of  information  about  the  Greco- 
oriental  religion  of  the  Hellenistic  age  is  found  by  scholars 
like  Dieterich  and  Reitzenstein  in  the  so-called  "magical" 
papyri.  Among  the  many  interesting  papyrus  documents 
which  have  recently  been  discovered  in  Egypt  are  some  that 
contain  formulas  intended  to  be  used  in  incantations.  At  first 
sight  these  formulas  look  like  hopeless  nonsense;  it  may  per- 
haps even  be  said  that  they  are  intended  to  be  nonsense.  That 
is,  the  effect  is  sought,  not  from  any  logical  understanding  of 
the  formulas  either  on  the  part  of  those  who  use  them  or  on 
the  part  of  the  higher  powers  upon  whom  they  are  to  be  used, 
but  simply  and  solely  from  the  mechanical  effect  of  certain 
combinations  of  sounds.  Thus  the  magical  papyri  include 
not  only  divine  names  in  foreign  languages  (the  ancient  and 
original  name  of  a  god  being  regarded  as  exerting  a  coercive 
effect  upon  that  god),  but  also  many  meaningless  rows  of 
letters  which  do  not  form  words  at  all.  But  according  to 
Dieterich  and  Reitzenstein  and  others,  these  papyri,  non- 
sensical as  they  are  in  their  completed  form,  often  embody 
materials  which  belong  not  to  magic  but  to  religion;  in  par- 
ticular, they  make  use,  for  a  magical  purpose,  of  what  was 
originally  intended  to  be  used  in  a  living  religious  cult.  Indeed 
the  distinction  between  magic  and  religion  is  often  difficult 
to  draw.  In  religion  there  is  an  element  of  interest,  on  the 
part  of  the  worshiper,  in  the  higher  powers  as  such,  some 
idea  of  propitiating  them,  of  winning  their  favor;  whereas  in 
magic  the  higher  powers  are  made  use  of  as  though  they 
were  mere  machines  through  the  use  of  incantations  and  spells. 
But  when  this  distinction  is  applied  to  the  ancient  mystery 
religions,  sometimes  these  religions  seem  to  be  little  more 
than  magic,  so  external  and  mechanical  is  the  way  in  which 
the  initiation  is  supposed  to  work.  It  is  not  surprising,  there- 
fore, if  the  composers  of  magical  formulas  turned  especially, 
in  seeking  their  materials,  to  the  mystery  cults;  for  they 
were  drawn  in  that  direction  by  a  certain  affinity  both  of 
purpose  and  of  method.  At  any  rate,  whatever  may  be  the 
explanation,  the  existing  magical  papyri,  according  to  Die- 
terich and  others,  do  contain  important  elements  derived  from 
the  oriental  religious  cults;  it  is  only  necessary,  Dieterich 
maintains,  to  subtract  the  obviously  later  elements — the  non- 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  247 

sensical  rows  of  letters  and  the  like — in  order  to  obtain  im- 
portant sources  of  information  about  the  religious  life  of  the 
Hellenistic  age. 

This  method  has  been  applied  by  Dieterich  especially  to 
a  Paris  magical  papyrus,  with  the  result  that  the  underlying 
religious  document  is  found  to  be  nothing  less  than  a  liturgy 
of  the  religion  of  Mithras.1  Dieterich's  conclusions  have 
not  escaped  unchallenged ;  the  connection  of  the  document  with 
Mithraism  has  been  denied,  for  example,  by  Cumont.2  Of 
course,  even  if  the  document  be  not  really  a  "Mithras  liturgy," 
it  may  still  be  of  great  value  in  the  reconstruction  of  Hellen- 
istic gnosis.  With  regard  to  date,  however,  it  is  not  any  more 
favorably  placed  than  the  documents  which  have  just  been 
considered.  The  papyrus  manuscript  in  which  the  "liturgy" 
is  contained  was  written  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century 
after  Christ ;  and  the  composition  of  the  "liturgy"  itself  can- 
not be  fixed  definitely  at  any  very  much  earlier  date.  3  Die- 
terich supposes  that  the  beginning  was  made  in  the  second 
century,  and  that  there  were  successive  additions  afterward. 
At  any  rate,  then,  not  only  the  papyrus  manuscript,  but  also 
the  liturgy  which  it  is  thought  to  contain,  was  produced  long 
after  the  time  of  Paul.  Like  the  Hermetic  writings,  more- 
over, Dieterich's  Mithras  liturgy  presents  a  conception  of 
union  with  divinity  which  is  really  altogether  unlike  the  Pauline 
gospel. 

But  information  about  pre-Christian  paganism  is  being 
sought  not  only  in  ostensibly  pagan  sources ;  it  is  also  being 
sought  in  the  Gnosticism  which  appears  in  connection  with 
the  Christian  Church.  Gnosticism  used  to  be  regarded  as 
a  "heresy,"  a  perversion  of  Christian  belief.  Now,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  being  regarded  as  essentially  non-Christian,  as 
a  manifestation  of  Greco-oriental  religion  which  was  brought 
into  only  very  loose  connection  with  Christianity;  the  great 
Gnostic  systems  of  the  second  century,  it  is  said,  when  they 
are  stripped  of  a  few  comparatively  unimportant  Christian 
elements  are  found  to  represent  not  a  development  from  Chris- 
tianity but  rather  the  spiritual  atmosphere  from  which  Chris- 
tianity itself  sprang. 

If  this  view  of  the  case  be  correct,  it  is  at  least  significant 

1  Dieterich,  Eine  Mithrasliturgie,  2te  Aufl.,  1910. 
3  Op.  cit.,  p.  379    (English  Translation,  pp.  260f.). 
8  Dieterich,  op.  cit.,  pp.  43f. 


£48          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

that  pagan  teachers  of  the  second  century  (the  Gnostics) 
should  have  been  so  ready  to  adopt  Christian  elements  and  so 
anxious  to  give  their  systems  a  Christian  appearance.  Why 
should  a  similar  procedure  be  denied  in  the  case,  for  example, 
of  Hermes  Trismegistus  ?  If  second-century  paganism,  with- 
out at  all  modifying  its  essential  character,  could  sometimes 
actually  adopt  the  name  of  Christ,  why  should  it  be  thought 
incredible  that  the  compiler  of  the  Hermetic  literature,  who 
did  not  go  quite  so  far,  should  yet  have  permitted  Christian 
elements  to  creep  into  his  syncretistic  work?  Why  should 
similarity  of  language  between  Hermes  and  Paul,  supposing 
that  it  exists,  be  regarded  as  proving  dependence  of  Paul  upon 
a  type  of  paganism  like  that  of  Hermes,  rather  than  dependence 
of  Hermes  upon  Paul? 

But  the  use  of  Gnosticism  as  a  witness  to  pre-Christian 
paganism  is  faced  with  obvious  difficulties.  Gnosticism  has 
admittedly  been  influenced  by  Christianity.  Who  can  say, 
then,  exactly  how  far  the  Christian  influence  extends?  Who 
can  say  that  any  element  in  Gnosticism,  found  also  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  not  clearly  contained  in  pagan  sources,  is 
derived  from  paganism  rather  than  from  Christianity?  Yet 
it  is  just  exactly  such  procedure  which  is  advocated  by  Reitzen- 
stein  and  others. 

The  dangers  of  the  procedure  may  be  exhibited  by  an  ex- 
ample. In  Hermes  Trismegistus  the  spirit  is  regarded  as  the 
garment  of  the  soul.1  This  doctrine  is  the  exact  reverse  of 
Pauline  teaching,  since  it  makes  the  soul  appear  higher  than 
the  spirit,  whereas  in  Paul  the  Spirit,  in  the  believer,  is  exalted 
far  above  the  soul.  In  Hermes  the  spirit  appears  as  a  material 
substratum  of  the  soul;  in  Paul  the  Spirit  represents  the 
divine  power.  There  could  be  no  sharper  contradiction.  And 
the  matter  is  absolutely  central  in  Reitzenstein's  hypothesis, 
for  it  is  just  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  which  he  is 
seeking  to  derive  from  pagan  religion.  The  difficulty  for 
Reitzenstein,  then,  is  that  in  Hermes  the  spirit  appears  as 
the  garment  of  the  soul,  whereas  in  the  interests  of  his  theory 
the  soul  ought  to  appear  rather  as  the  garment  of  the  spirit. 
But  Reitzenstein  avoids  the  difficulty  by  appealing  to  Gnosti- 
cism. The  Hermetic  doctrine,  he  says,  is  nothing  but  the  neces- 

*Corp.  Herm.  x.  13. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  249 

sary  philosophic  reversal  of  the  Gnostic  doctrine  that  the 
soul  is  the  garment  of  the  spirit.1  Thus  Gnosticism  is  here 
made  to  be  a  witness  to  pre-Christian  pagan  belief,  in  direct 
defiance  of  pagan  sources.  Is  it  not  more  probable  that  the 
difference  between  Gnosticism  on  the  one  hand  and  pagan 
gnosis  as  represented  by  Hermes  on  the  other,  is  due  to  the 
influence  upon  the  former  of  the  Christian  doctrine?  It  is 
interesting  to  observe  that  J.  Kroll,  from  whom  the  above 
illustration  is  obtained,  insists  against  Reitzenstein  that  the 
Gnostic  doctrine,  as  over  against  the  doctrine  of  Hermes,  is 
here  clearly  secondary.2  At  any  rate,  then,  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  a  pre-Christian  pagan  doctrine  of  the  soul  as  the  gar- 
ment of  the  spirit  is  a  matter  of  pure  conjecture. 

Similar  difficulties  appear  everywhere.  It  is  certainly  very 
hazardous  to  use  Gnosticism,  a  post-Pauline  phenomenon  ap- 
pealing to  Paul  as  one  of  its  chief  sources,  as  a  witness  to 
pre-Pauline  paganism.  Certainly  such  use  of  Gnosticism  should 
be  carefully  lirm'ted  to  those  matters  where  there  is  some  con- 
firmatory pagan  testimony.  But  such  confirmatory  testi- 
mony, in  the  decisive  cases,  is  significantly  absent. 

The  use  of  Gnosticism  as  a  source  of  information  about  pre- 
Christian  paganism  might  be  less  precarious  if  the  separa- 
tion of  the  pagan  and  Christian  elements  could  be  carried 
out  by  means  of  literary  criticism.  Such  a  method  is  employed 
by  Reitzenstein  in  connection  with  an  interesting  passage  in 
Hippolytus.  In  attacking  the  Gnostic  sect  of  the  Naassenes, 
Hippolytus  says  that  the  sect  has  been  dependent  upon  the 
pagan  mysteries,  and  in  proof  he  quotes  a  Naassene  writing. 
This  quotation,  as  it  now  exists  in  the  work  of  Hippolytus, 
is,  according  to  Reitzenstein,  "a  pagan  text  with  Gnostic- 
Christian  scholia  (or  in  a  Gnostic-Christian  revision),  which 
has  been  taken  over  by  an  opponent  who  did  not  understand 
this  state  of  the  case,  and  so,  in  this  form,  has  been  used  by 
Hippolytus." 3  Reitzenstein  seeks  to  reproduce  the  pagan 
document.4 

Unquestionably   the   passage   is   interesting,    and   unques- 

1  Reitzenstein,  Hellenistische  Mysterienreligionen,  2te  Aufl.,  1920,  p.  183. 

2  J.  Kroll,  op.  cit.,  pp.  286-289,  especially  p.  288,  Anna.  1. 
8  Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  p.  82. 

*  Op.  cit.,  pp.  83-98. 


250          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tionably  it  contains  important  information  about  the  pagan 
mysteries.  But  it  does  not  help  to  establish  influence  of  the 
mysteries  upon  Paul.  It  must  be  observed  that  what  is  now 
being  maintained  against  Reitzenstein  is  not  that  the  Gnostics 
who  appear  in  the  polemic  of  the  anti-heretical,  ecclesiastical 
writers  of  the  close  of  the  second  century  and  the  beginning  of 
the  third  were  not  influenced  by  pre-Christian  paganism,  or 
even  that  they  did  not  derive  the  fundamentals  of  their  type 
of  religion  from  pre-Christian  paganism.  All  that  is  being 
maintained  is  that  it  is  very  precarious  to  use  the  Gnostic 
systems  in  reconstructing  pre-Christian  paganism  in  detail — 
especially  where  the  Gnostic  systems  differ  from  admittedly 
pagan  sources  and  agree  with  Paul.  In  reconstructing  the 
origin  of  Paulinism  it  is  precarious  to  employ  the  testimony 
of  those  who  lived  after  Paul  and  actually  quoted  Paul. 

All  the  sources   of  information   about   Greco-oriental   re- 
ligion which  have  thus  far  been  discussed  belong  to   a  time 
subsequent  to  Paul.     If  the  type  of  religion  which  they  attest 
is   to  be  pushed  back  into   the  pre-Christian  period,   it   can 
be  done  only  by  an  appeal  to  earlier  sources.     Such  earlier 
sources  are  sometimes  found  in  passages  like  Livy's  description 
of  the  Bacchanalian  rites  of  the  second  century  before  Christ 
in  Italy,  and  in  writers  such  as  Posidonius  and  Philo.     But 
the   presence   of   Bacchanalian   rites   in   Italy   in   the   second 
century   before    Christ    is    not    particularly    significant,    and 
the  details  of  those  rites  do  not  include  the  features  which 
in  the  later  sources   are  thought  to   invite  comparison  with 
Paul.     Posidonius,  the  Stoic  philosopher  of  the  first  century 
before  Christ,  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  very  great  influence ; 
and  no  doubt  he  did  introduce  oriental  elements  into  the  Stoic 
philosophy.     But  his  works,  for  the  most  part,  have  been  lost, 
and  so   far  as   they   have  been  reconstructed  by   the  use  of 
writers  who  were  dependent  upon  him,  they  do  not  seem  to  con- 
tain those  elements  which  might  be  regarded  as  explaining  the 
genesis  of  Paulinism.     With  regard  to  Philo,  who  was  an  older 
contemporary    of    Paul,    the   investigator   finds    himself    in    a 
much  more  favorable  position,  since  voluminous  works  of  the 
Alexandrian    philosopher    have    been    preserved.      There    is    a 
tendency  in  recent  investigation  to  make  Philo  an  important 
witness   to  Greco-oriental  religion  as   it   found   expression  in 


THE  RELIGION  OF  THE  HELLENISTIC  AGE  251 

the   mysteries.1      But    the   bearing1    of    the    evidence   does    not 
seem  to  be  absolutely  unequivocal.     At  any  rate,  the  relation 
between  Paul  and  Philo  has  been  the  subject  of  investigation 
for  many  years,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  results  have 
accomplished  anything  toward  explaining  the  genesis  of  Paul's 
religion.      Direct   dependence   of   Paul   upon   Philo,   it   is    ad- 
mitted,  has   not   been   proved,   and   even   dependence   of  both 
upon  the  same  type  of  thought  is  highly  problematical.     The 
state  of  the  evidence  is  not  essentially  altered  by  designating 
as  the  type  of  thought  upon  which  both  are  supposed  to  have 
been  dependent   the  Greco-oriental  religion  of  the  mysteries. 
The  real  question  is  whether  the  testimony  of  Philo  establishes 
as  of  pre-Christian  origin  that  type  of  mystical  piety  from 
which  Paulinism  is  being  derived — the  type  of  religion  which 
is    attested,    for   example,   by   Firmicus   Maternus    or   by   the 
fourth-century   inscriptions   that   deal   with   the   taurobolium, 
or  by  Hermes   Trismegistus,   or  by  Dieterich's   "Mithras  lit- 
urgy," or  by  the  pagan  elements  which  are  supposed  to  lie  back 
of  second-century  Gnosticism.    And  so  far  as  can  be  judged  on 
the  basis  of  the  evidence  which  is  actually  being  adduced  by 
the  comparative-religion  school,  the  question  must  be  answered 
in  the  negative.     Even  the  living  connection  of  Philo  with  the 
mysteries  of  his  own  day  does  not  seem  to  be  definitely  estab- 
lished.    And  if  it  were  established,  the  further  question  would 
remain  as  to  whether  the  mystery  religions  of  Philo's  day  con- 
tained just  those  elements  which  in  the  mystery  religions  of 
the  post-Pauline  period   are   supposed   to   show   similarity   to 
Paul.      If   the   mystical  piety   which   is   attested   by   Philo   is 
sufficient  to  be  regarded  as  the  basis  of  Paulinism,  why  should 
the  investigator  appeal  to  Firmicus  Maternus?    And  if  he  does 
appeal  to  Firmicus  Maternus,  with  what  right  can  he  assume 
that  the  elements  which  he  thus  finds  existed  in  the  days  of 
Philo  and  of  Paul? 

Mielbig,  review  of  "Philo  von  Alexandrien:  Werke,  in  deut.  Uebersetzg. 
hrsg.  v.  Prof.  Dr.  Loop.  Cohn.  3.  Tl.,"  in  Theologische  Literaturzeitung ,  xlv, 
1920,  column  30:  "Here  one  perceives  with  all  requisite  clearness  that 
Philo  did  not  merely  imitate  the  language  of  the  mystery  religions,  but 
had  been  himself  a 


CHAPTER  VII 

REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  AND 

IN  PAUL 


CHAPTER  VII 

REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  AND  IN  PAUL 

IT  has  been  observed  thus  far  that  in  comparing  Paul 
with  Hellenistic  pagan  religion,  the  question  of  priority  can- 
not be  ruled  out  so  easily  as  is  sometimes  supposed.  Another 
preliminary  question,  moreover,  remains.  Through  what  chan- 
nels did  the  supposed  influence  of  the  mystery  religions  enter 
into  the  life  of  Paul?  The  question  is  somewhat  perplexing. 
In  view  of  the  outline  of  Paul's  life  which  was  set  forth  in 
Chapters  II  and  III,  it  would  seem  difficult  to  find  a  place  for 
the  entrance  of  pagan  religious  thought. 

One  suggestion  is  that  pagan  thought  came  to  Paul  only 
through  the  medium  of  Judaism.  That  suggestion  would  ex- 
plain the  consciousness  that  Paul  attests  of  having  been,  be- 
fore his  conversion,  a  devout  Jew.  If  pagan  religion  had  al- 
ready entered  into  the  warp  and  woof  of  Judaism,  and  if  the 
throes  of  the  process  of  assimilation  had  already  been  for- 
gotten before  the  time  of  Paul,  then  Paul  might  regard  him- 
self as  a  devout  Jew,  hostile  to  all  pagan  influence,  and  yet  be 
profoundly  influenced  by  the  paganism  which  had  already 
found  an  entrance  into  the  Jewish  stronghold. 

But  the  trouble  is  that  with  regard  to  those  matters  which 
are  thought  to  be  necessary  for  the  explanation  of  Paul's 
religion  there  is  no  evidence  that  paganism  had  entered  into 
the  common  life  of  the  Jews.  It  has  been  shown  in  Chap- 
ter V  that  the  Judaism  of  the  first  century,  as  it  can  be  re- 
constructed by  the  use  of  the  extant  sources,  is  insufficient 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  Paulinism.  That  fact  is  admitted 
by  those  scholars  who  are  having  recourse  to  the  hypothesis 
of  pagan  influence.  Therefore,  if  the  pagan  influence  came  to 
Paul  through  the  medium  of  Judaism,  the  historian  must  first 
posit  the  existence  of  a  Judaism  into  which  the  necessary  pagan 
elements  had  entered.  There  is  no  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  such  a  Judaism;  in  fact  the  extant  Jewish  sources  point 

255 


256  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

clearly  in  an  opposite  direction.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult, 
therefore,  to  suppose,  in  defiance  of  the  Jewish  sources,  and 
in  the  mere  interests  of  a  theory  as  to  the  genesis  of  Paulin- 
ism,  that  the  Pharisaic  Judaism  from  which  Paul  sprang  was 
imbued  with  a  mystical  piety  like  that  of  the  mystery  religions 
or  of  Hermes  Trismegistus.  In  fact,  in  view  of  the  known 
character  of  Pharisaic  Judaism,  the  hypothesis  is  nothing  short 
of  monstrous. 

Therefore,  if  Paul  was  influenced  by  the  pagan  mystery 
religions  it  could  not  have  been  simply  in  virtue  of  his  con- 
nection with  first-century  Judaism;  it  must  have  been  due  to 
some  special  influences  which  were  brought  to  bear  upon  him. 
Where  could  these  influences  have  been  exerted?  One  sugges- 
tion is  that  they  were  exerted  in  Tarsus,  his  boyhood  home. 
Stress  is  thus  laid  upon  the  fact  that  Paul  was  born  not  in 
Palestine  but  in  the  Dispersion.  As  he  grew  up  in  Tarsus,  it 
is  said,  he  could  not  help  observing  the  paganism  that  sur- 
rounded him.  At  this  point,  some  historians,  on  entirely 
insufficient  evidence,  are  inclined  to  be  specific;  they  are 
tempted,  for  example,  to  speak  of  mysteries  of  Mithras  as 
being  practised  in  or  near  Tarsus  in  Paul's  early  years.  The 
hypothesis  is  only  weakened  by  such  incautious  advocacy;  it 
is  much  better  to  point  merely  to  the  undoubted  fact  that  Tar- 
sus was  a  pagan  city  and  was  presumably  affected  by  the  exist- 
ing currents  of  pagan  life.  But  if  Paul  grew  up  in  a  pagan 
environment,  was  he  influenced  by  it?  An  affirmative  answer 
would  seem  to  run  counter  to  his  own  testimony.  Although 
Paul  was  born  in  Tarsus,  he  belonged  inwardly  to  Palestine ;  he 
and  his  parents  before  him  were  not  "Hellenists"  but  "Hebrews." 
Moreover,  he  was  a  Pharisee,  more  exceedingly  zealous  than 
his  contemporaries  for  his  paternal  traditions.  The  evidence 
has  been  examined  in  a  previous  chapter.  Certainly  then,  Paul 
was  not  a  "liberal"  Jew;  far  from  being  inclined  to  break 
down  the  wall  of  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  he  was 
especially  zealous  for  the  Law.  It  is  very  difficult  to  conceive 
of  such  a  man — with  his  excessive  zeal  for  the  Mosaic  Law, 
with  his  intense  hatred  of  paganism,  with  his  intense  conscious- 
ness of  the  all-sufficiency  of  Jewish  privileges — as  being  sus- 
ceptible to  the  pagan  influences  that  surrounded  his  orthodox 
home. 

The  hypothesis  must,  therefore,   at  least  be  modified  to 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION          257 

the  extent  that  the  pagan  influence  exerted  at  Tarsus  be  re- 
garded as  merely  unconscious.  Paul  did  not  deliberately  ac- 
cept the  pagan  religion  of  Tarsus,  it  might  be  said,  but  at 
least  he  became  acquainted  with  it,  and  his  acquaintance  with 
it  became  fruitful  after  he  entered  upon  his  Gentile  mission. 
According  to  this  hypothesis,  the  attitude  of  Paul  toward 
pagan  religion  was  in  the  early  days  in  Tarsus  merely  nega- 
tive, but  became  more  favorable  (whether  or  no  Paul  himself 
was  conscious  of  the  real  source  of  the  pagan  ideas)  because  of 
subsequent  events.  But  what  were  the  events  which  induced  in 
Paul  a  more  favorable  attitude  toward  ideas  which  were  really 
pagan?  When  did  he  overcome  his  life-long  antagonism  to 
everything  connected  with  the  worship  of  false  gods?  Such 
a  change  of  attitude  is  certainly  not  attested  by  the  Epistles. 

It  will  probably  be  admitted  that  if  pagan  influence  en- 
tered into  the  heart  of  Paul's  religious  life  it  could  only  have 
done  so  by  some  more  subtle  way  than  by  the  mere  retention 
in  Paul's  mind  of  what  he  had  seen  at  Tarsus.  The  way  which 
finds  special  favor  among  recent  historians  is  discovered  in  the 
pre-Pauline  Christianity  of  cities  like  Damascus  and  Antioch. 
When  Paul  was  converted,  it  is  said,  he  was  converted  not  to  the 
Christianity  of  Jerusalem,  but  to  the  Christianity  of  Damascus 
and  Antioch.  But  the  Christianity  of  Damascus  and  Antioch, 
it  is  supposed,  had  already  received  pagan  elements ;  hence  the 
very  fact  of  Paul's  conversion  broke  down  his  Jewish  prejudices 
and  permitted  the  influx  of  pagan  ideas.  Of  course  Paul  did 
not  know  that  they  were  pagan  ideas ;  he  supposed  that  they 
were  merely  Christian ;  but  pagan  they  were,  nevertheless.  The 
Hellenistic  Jews  who  founded  the  churches  at  Damascus  and 
Antioch,  unlike  the  original  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  were  liberal 
Jews,  susceptible  to  pagan  influence  and  desirous  of  attributing 
to  Jesus  all  that  the  pagans  attributed  to  their  own  cult-gods. 
Thus  Jesus  became  a  cult-god  like  the  cult-gods  of  the  pagan 
religions,  and  Christianity  became  similar,  in  important  re- 
spects, to  the  pagan  cults. 

This  hypothesis  has  been  advocated  brilliantly  by  Heit- 
imiller  and  Bousset.1  But  what  evidence  can  be  adduced  in 
favor  of  it?  How  may  the  Christianity  of  Damascus  and  An- 

1See  especially  Heitmiiller,  "Zum  Problem  Paulus  und  Jesus,"  in  Zeit- 
gchrift  fur  die  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  xiii,  1912,  pp.  320-337; 
"Jesus  und  Paulus,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  xxv,  1915, 
pp.  156-179;  Bousset,  Jesus  der  Herr,  1916,  pp.  30-37. 


258  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

tioch,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  influenced  by  pagan  re- 
ligion, be  reconstructed?  Even  Heitmiiller  and  Bousset  admit 
that  the  reconstruction  is  very  difficult.  The  only  unques- 
tioned source  of  information  about  the  pre-Pauline  Christianity 
which  is  the  subject  of  investigation  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles  themselves.  But  if  the  material  is  found  in 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  how  can  the  historian  be  sure  that  it  is 
not  the  product  of  Paul's  own  thinking?  How  can  the  specific- 
ally Pauline  element  in  the  Epistles  be  separated  form  the  ele- 
ment which  is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  pre-Pauline 
Hellenistic  Christianity? 

The  process  of  separation,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  diffi- 
cult. But,  according  to  Bousset  and  Heitmiiller,  it  is  not  im- 
possible. There  are  passages  in  the  Epistles  where  Paul  evi- 
dently assumes  that  certain  things  are  known  already  to  his 
readers.  In  churches  where  Paul  himself  had  not  already 
had  the  opportunity  of  teaching,  notably  at  Rome,  those  ele- 
ments assumed  as  already  known  must  have  been  derived,  it  is 
said,  from  teachers  other  than  Paul ;  they  must  have  formed 
part  of  the  pre-Pauline  fund  of  Hellenistic  Christianity. 

But  in  order  to  reconstruct  this  pre-Pauline  Hellenistic 
Christianity,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  separate  what  Paul  had 
received  from  what  he  himself  produced.  Another  process  of 
separation  remains ;  and  this  second  process  is  vastly  more 
difficult  than  the  first.  In  order  to  reconstruct  the  Hellen- 
istic Christianity  of  Antioch,  upon  which  Paulinism  is  thought 
to  be  based,  it  is  necessary  not  only  to  separate  what  Paul 
received  from  what  he  produced,  but  also  to  separate  what  he 
received  from  Antioch  from  what  he  received  from  Jerusalem. 
It  is  in  connection  with  this  latter  process  that  the  hypothesis 
of  Heitmiiller  and  Bousset  breaks  down.  Unquestionably  some 
elements  in  the  Epistles  can  be  established  as  having  been 
received  by  Paul  from  those  who  had  been  Christians  before 
him.  One  notable  example  is  found  in  1  Cor.  xv.  1-7.  In  that 
all-important  passage  Paul  distinctly  says  that  he  had  "re- 
ceived" his  account  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  But  how  does  Bousset  know  that  he  received  it  from 
the  Church  at  Antioch  or  the  Church  at  Damascus  rather  than 
from  the  Church  at  Jerusalem?  Paul  had  been  in  intimate 
contact  with  Peter  in  Jerusalem;  Peter  is  prominent  in  1  Cor. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  259 

xv.  1-7.  What  reason  is  there,  then,  for  deserting  the  common 
view,  regarded  almost  as  an  axiom  of  criticism,  to  the  effect 
that  1  Cor.  xv.  1-7  represents  the  tradition  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  which  Paul  received  from  Peter? 

Moreover,  what  right  have  Bousset  and  Heitmiiller  to  use 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  reconstructing  the  Christianity 
of  Antioch?  Even  if  in  that  Epistle  the  elements  of  specifically 
Pauline  teaching  can  be  separated  from  those  things  which 
Paul  regards  as  already  matter  of  course  in  the  Roman  Church, 
what  reason  is  there  to  assume  that  the  pre-Pauline  Christian- 
ity of  Rome  was  the  same  as  the  pre-Pauline  Christianity 
of  Antioch  and  Damascus  ?  Information  about  the  pre-Pauline 
Christianity  of  Antioch  and  Damascus  is,  to  say  the  least, 
scanty  and  uncertain.  And  it  is  that  Christianity  only — the 
Christianity  with  which  Paul  came  into  contact  soon  after 
his  conversion — and  not  the  Christianity  of  Rome,  which  can 
be  of  use  in  explaining  the  origin  of  Paul's  religion. 

Finally,  what  reason  is  there  for  supposing  that  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Damascus  and  Antioch  was  different  in  essentials 
from  the  Christianity  of  Jerusalem?  An  important  step,  it 
is  said,  was  taken  when  the  gospel  was  transplanted  from  its 
native  Palestinian  soil  to  the  Greek-speaking  world — the  most 
momentous  step  in  the  whole  history  of  Christianity,  the  most 
heavily  fraught  with  changes.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church  itself  was  bilingual;  it 
contained  a  large  Greek-speaking  element.  The  transplanting 
of  the  gospel  to  Antioch  was  accomplished  not  by  any  ordinary 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  but  by  those  Jews  of  the  Dispersion 
who  had  lived  at  Jerusalem  and  had  received  their  instruction 
from  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus.  Is  it  likely  that  such 
men  would  so  soon  forget  the  impressions  that  they  had  re- 
ceived, and  would  transform  Christianity  from  a  simple  accept- 
ance of  Jesus  as  Messiah  with  eager  longing  for  His  return  into 
a  cult  that  emulated  the  pagan  cults  of  the  surrounding  world 
by  worship  of  Jesus  as  Lord?  The  transition,  if  it  occurred  at 
all,  occurred  with  astonishing  rapidity.  Paul  was  converted 
only  two  or  three  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  If, 
therefore,  the  paganizing  Hellenistic  Christianity  of  Damascus 
and  Antioch  was  to  be  the  spiritual  soil  in  which  Paul's  religion 
was  nurtured,  it  must  have  been  formed  in  the  very  early  days. 


260  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  pagan  influences  could  hardly  have  begun  to  enter  after 
the  conversion  of  Paul.1  For  then  Paul  would  have  been  con- 
scious of  their  entrance,  and  all  the  advantages  of  the  hypothe- 
sis would  disappear — the  hypothesis  would  then  be  excluded 
by  the  self-testimony  of  Paul.  But  the  formation  of  a  pagan- 
izing Christianity  at  Antioch  and  Damascus,  in  the  very  early 
days  and  by  the  instrumentality  of  men  who  had  come  under 
the  instruction  of  the  intimate  friends  of  Jesus,  and  despite 
the  constant  intercourse  between  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  in 
question,  is  very  difficult  to  conceive.  At  any  rate,  the  sepa- 
ration between  what  Paul  received  from  Antioch  and  Damascus 
and  what  he  received  from  Jerusalem  is  quite  impossible. 
Heitmiiller  and  Bousset  have  not  really  helped  matters  by  try- 
ing to  place  an  additional  link  in  the  chain  between  Paul  and 
Jesus.  The  Hellenistic  Christianity  of  Antioch,  supposed  to 
be  distinct  from  the  Christianity  of  Jerusalem,  is  to  say  the 
least  a  very  shadowy  thing. 

But  Bousset  and  Heitmiiller  probably  will  not  maintain  that 
all  the  pagan  influences  which  entered  the  life  of  Paul  entered 
through  the  gateway  of  pre-Pauline  Hellenistic  Christianity. 
On  the  contrary,  it  will  probably  be  said  that  Paul  lived  all 
his  life  in  the  midst  of  a  pagan  religious  atmosphere,  which 
affected  him  directly  as  well  as  through  the  community  at 
Antioch.  But  how  was  this  direct  pagan  influence  exerted? 
Some  suppose  that  it  was  exerted  through  the  reading  of 
pagan  religious  literature;  others  suppose  that  it  came  merely 
through  conversation  with  "the  man  in  the  street."  Paul  de- 
sired to  become  all  things  to  all  men  (we  are  reminded),  in 
order  that  by  all  means  he  might  save  some  (1  Cor.  ix.  22). 
But  what  was  more  necessary  for  winning  the  Gentiles  than 
familiarity  with  their  habits  of  thought  and  life?  Therefore, 
it  is  said,  Paul  must  have  made  some  study  of  paganism  in 
order  to  put  his  proclamation  of  the  gospel  in  a  form  which 
would  appeal  to  the  pagans  whom  he  sought  to  win. 

A  certain  element  of  truth  underlies  this  contention.  It 
should  not  be  supposed  that  Paul  was  ignorant  of  the  pagan 
life  that  surrounded  him.  He  uses  figures  of  speech  derived 
from  the  athletic  games;  here  and  there  in  his  Epistles  he 
makes  reference  to  the  former  religious  practices  of  his  con- 
verts. It  is  not  unnatural  that  he  should  occasionally  have 
*But  compare  Bousset,  op.  cit.f  p.  S3. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION          261 

sought  common  ground  with  those  to  whom  he  preached,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  example  contained  in  the  seventeenth  chapter 
of  Acts.  But  on  the  whole,  the  picture  of  Paul  making  a  study 
of  paganism  in  preparation  for  his  life-work  is  too  modern  to 
be  convincing.  It  may  seem  natural  to  those  modern  mis- 
sionaries who  no  longer  regard  Christianity  as  a  positive  re- 
ligion, who  no  longer  insist  upon  any  sharp  break  on  the 
part  of  the  converts  with  their  ancestral  ways  of  thinking, 
who  are  perfectly  content  to  derive  help  from  all  quarters  and 
are  far  more  interested  in  improving  political  and  social  con- 
ditions in  the  land  for  which  they  labor  than  they  are  in  se- 
curing assent  to  any  specific  Christian  message.  The  Chris- 
tianity of  such  missionaries  might  consistently  be  hospitable  to 
foreign  influence;  such  missionaries  might  assign  the  central 
place  in  their  preparation  to  the  investigation  of  the  religious 
life  of  mission  lands.  But  the  Christianity  of  Paul  was  entirely 
different.  Paul  was  convinced  of  the  exclusiveness  and  the  all- 
sufficiency  of  his  own  message.  The  message  had  been  revealed 
to  him  directly  by  the  Lord.  It  was  supported  by  the  testimony 
of  those  who  had  been  intimate  with  Jesus ;  it  was  supported 
by  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  But  throughout  it  was  the 
product  of  revelation.  To  the  Jews  it  was  a  stumbling-block, 
to  the  Greeks  foolishness.  But  to  those  who  were  saved  it 
was  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.  "Where  is  the 
wise,"  says  Paul,  "where  is  the  scribe,  where  is  the  disputer 
of  this  world?  hath  not  God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  the 
world?"  It  is  a  little  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  man  who 
wrote  these  words  was  willing  to  modify  the  divine  foolishness 
of  his  message  in  order  to  make  it  conform  to  the  religion  of 
pagan  hearers. 

Two  reservations,  therefore,  are  necessary  before  the  in- 
vestigator can  enter  upon  an  actual  comparison  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  with  Hermes  Trismegistus  and  other  similar  sources. 
In  the  first  place,  it  has  not  been  proved  that  the  type  of  re- 
ligion attested  by  these  sources  existed  at  all  in  the  time  of 
Paul ;  1  and  in  the  second  place,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any 
pagan  influence  could  have  entered  into  Paul's  life.  But  if 
despite  these  difficulties  the  comparison  be  instituted,  it  will 
show,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  not  agreement,  but  a  most  striking 
divergence  both  of  language  and  of  spirit. 
1  See  Chapter  VI. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  investigation  may  be  divided  into  three  parts,  although 
the  three  parts  will  be  found  to  overlap  at  many  points.  Three 
fundamental  elements  in  Paul's  religion  have  been  derived 
from  Greco-oriental  syncretism:  first,  the  complex  of  ideas 
connected  with  the  obtaining  of  salvation;  second,  the  sacra- 
ments ;  third,  the  Christology  and  the  work  of  Christ  in  re- 
demption.1 

The  first  of  the  three  divisions  just  enumerated  is  con- 
nected especially  with  the  name  of  R.  Reitzenstein.2  Reitzen- 
stein  lays  great  stress  upon  the  lexical  method  of  study;  it 
may  be  proved,  he  believes,  that  Paul  used  terms  which  were 
derived  from  Hellenistic  mystical  religion,  and  with  the  terms 
went  the  ideas.  The  ideas,  he  admits,  were  not  taken  over 
without  modification,  but  even  after  the  Pauline  modifications 
are  subtracted,  enough  is  thought  to  remain  in  order  to  show 
that  the  mystery  religions  exerted  an  important  influence  upon 
Paul. 

Thus  Reitzenstein  attempts  to  exhibit  in  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles a  technical  vocabulary  derived  from  the  Hellenized  mys- 
tery religions.  This  supposed  technical  vocabulary  embraces 
especially  the  terms  connected  with  "knowledge"  3  arid 
"Spirit."  4 

In  the  mystical  religion  of  Paul's  day,  Reitzenstein  says, 
"gnosis"  (knowledge)  did  not  mean  knowledge  acquired  by 
processes  of  investigation  or  reasoning,  but  the  knowledge  that 
came  by  immediate  revelation  from  a  god.  Such  immediate 
revelation  was  given,  in  the  mystery  cults,  by  the  mystic  vision 
which  formed  a  part  of  the  experience  of  initiation;  in  the 
philosophizing  derivatives  of  the  mystery  cults,  like  the  type 
of  piety  which  is  attested  in  Hermes  Trismegistus,  the  revela- 

1  For  what  follows,  compare  especially  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the 
Mystery-Religions,  [1913];  Clemen,  Religionsgeschichtliche  Erkldrung  des 
Neuen  Testaments,  1909  (English  Translation,  Primitive  Christianity  and 
Its  Non-Jewish  Sources,  1912),  Der  Einftuss  der  Mysterienreligionen  auf 
das  dlteste  Christentum,  1913.  These  writers  deny  for  the  most  part  any 
influence  of  the  mystery  religions  upon  the  center  of  Paul's  religion.  For 
a  thoroughgoing  presentation  of  the  other  side  of  the  controversy,  see, 
in  addition  to  the  works  of  Bousset  and  lleitzenstein,  Loisy,  Les  mysteres 
pawns  et  le  mystere  Chretien,  1919. 

*Poimandres,  1904;  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen,  2te  Aufl., 
1920;  "Religionsgeschichte  und  Eschatologie,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  die  neu- 
testamentliche  Wissenschaft,  xiii,  1912,  pp.  1-28. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION 

tion  could  be  divorced  from  any  external  acts  and  connected 
with  the  mere  reading  of  a  book.  But  in  any  case,  "gnosis" 
was  not  regarded  as  an  achievement  of  the  intellect ;  it  was 
an  experience  granted  by  divine  favor.  The  man  who  had  re- 
ceived such  favor  was  exalted  far  above  ordinary  humanity; 
indeed  he  was  already  deified. 

This  conception  of  gnosis,  Reitzenstein  believes,  is  the 
conception  which  is  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  gnosis  ac- 
cording to  Paul  was  a  gift  of  God,  an  experience  produced 
by  the  divine  Spirit.  In  the  case  of  Paul,  Reitzenstein  con- 
tinues, the  experience  was  produced  through  a  vision  of  the 
risen  Christ.  That  vision  had  changed  the  very  nature  of  Paul. 
It  is  true,  Paul  avoids  the  term  "deification" ;  he  does  not  say, 
in  accordance  with  Hellenistic  usage,  that  he  had  ceased  to 
be  a  man  and  had  become- God.  This  limitation  was  required 
by  his  Jewish  habits  of  thought.  But  he  does  say  that  through 
his  vision  he  was  illumined  and  received  "glory."  Thus,  al- 
though the  term  deification  is  avoided,  the  idea  is  present.  As 
one  who  has  received  gnosis,  Paul  regards  himself  as  being 
beyond  the  reach  of  human  judgments,  and  is  not  interested  in 
tradition  that  came  from  other  Christians.  In  short,  accord- 
ing to  Reitzenstein,  Paul  was  a  true  "gnostic." 

But  this  conclusion  is  reached  only  by  doing  violence  to 
the  plain  meaning  of  the  Epistles.  "Gnosis"  in  the  early 
Church  (including  Paul),  as  Von  Harnack  well  observes,1  is 
not  a  technical  term ;  it  is  no  more  a  technical  term  than  is, 
for  example,  "wisdom."  In  1  Cor.  xii.  8  it  appears,  not  by 
itself,  but  along  with  many  other  spiritual  gifts  of  widely 
diverse  nature.  Gnosis,  therefore,  does  not  stand  in  that 
position  of  prominence  which  it  ought  to  occupy  if  Reitzen- 
stein's  theory  were  correct.  It  is,  indeed,  according  to  Paul, 
important;  and  it  is  a  direct  gift  from  God.  But  what  rea- 
son is  there  to  have  recourse  to  Hellenistic  mystery  religions 
in  order  to  explain  either  its  importance  or  its  nature?  An- 
other explanation  is  found  much  nearer  at  hand — namely,  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  possibility  of  Old  Testament  in- 
fluence in  Paul  does  not  have  to  be  established  by  any  elaborate 
arguments,  and  is  not  opposed  by  his  own  testimony.  On  the 

1Von  Harnack,  "Die  Terminologie  der  Wiedergeburt  und  verwandter 
Erlebnisse  in  der  altesten  Kirche,"  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungien  zur 
Oeschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  xlii,  1918,  pp.  128f.,  Anm.  1. 


264  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

contrary,  he  appeals  to  the  Old  Testament  again  and  again 
in  his  Epistles.  And  the  Old  Testament  contains  all  the  ele- 
ments of  his  conception  of  the  knowledge  of  God.  Even  the 
Greek  noun  "gnosis"  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  (though  with 
comparative  infrequency)  ;  but  what  is  far  more  important  is 
that  the  idea  is  expressed  countless  times  by  the  verb.  Let 
it  not  be  said  that  the  Septuagint  is  a  Hellenistic  book,  and 
that  therefore  if  the  Septuagint  idea  of  the  knowledge  of  God 
affords  the  basis  for  Pauline  teaching  that  does  not  disprove 
the  influence  of  the  Hellenistic  mystery  religions.  For  in  its 
rendering  of  the  passages  dealing  with  the  knowledge  of  God, 
whatever  may  be  said  of  other  matters,  the  Septuagint  is 
transmitting  faithfully  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
Knowledge  of  God  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  is  something 
far  more  than  a  mere  intellectual  achievement.  It  is  the  gift  of 
God,  and  it  involves  the  entire  emotional  nature. 

But  may  it  not  be  objected  that  the  Pauline  conception 
transcends  that  of  the  Old  Testament  in  that  in  Paul  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  produces  a  transformation  of  human  nature — the 
virtual  deification  of  man?  This  question  must  be  answered  in 
the  negative.  Undoubtedly  the  Pauline  conception  does  tran- 
scend that  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  not  in  the  way  which  is 
here  supposed.  The  intimate  relation  between  the  believer 
and  the  risen  Christ,  according  to  Paul,  goes  far  beyond  any- 
thing that  was  possible  under  the  old  dispensation.  It  in- 
volves a  fuller,  richer,  more  intimate  knowledge.  But  the  ex- 
perience in  which  Paul  saw  the  risen  Christ  near  Damascus 
was  not  an  end  in  itself,  as  it  would  have  been  in  the  milieu  of 
the  mystery  religions ;  it  was  rather  a  means  to  an  end.1  It 
was  the  divinely  appointed  means  by  which  Paul  was  con- 
vinced of  an  historical  fact,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  was 
led  to  appropriate  the  benefits  of  that  fact.  Thus,  as  Oepke  2 
has  well  observed,  Paul  does  not  expect  his  converts  all  to  see 
Christ,  or  even  to  have  experiences  like  that  which  is  de- 
scribed in  2  Cor.  xii.  2-4.  It  is  sufficient  for  them  to  receive 
the  historical  account  of  Christ's  redeeming  work,  through 
the  testimony  of  Paul  and  of  the  other  witnesses.  That  ac- 
count, transmitted  by  ordinary  word  of  mouth,  is  a  sufficient 
basis  for  faith ;  and  through  faith  comes  the  new  life.  At  this 

1  Oepke,  Die  Missionspredigt  des  Apostela  Paulus,  1920,  p.  53. 
a  Loc.  cit. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION          265 

point  is  discovered  an  enormous  difference  between  Paul  and 
the  mystery  religions.  In  the  mystery  religions  everything  led 
up  to  the  mystic  vision;  without  that  mystic  vision  there  was 
no  escape  from  the  miseries  of  the  old  life.  But  according  to 
Paul,  the  mighty  change  was  produced  by  the  acceptance  of  a 
simple  story,  an  account  of  what  had  happened  only  a  few 
years  before,  when  Jesus  died  and  rose  again.  From  the  ac- 
ceptance cf  that  story  there  proceeds  a  new  knowledge,  a  gnosis. 
But  this  higher  gnosis  in  Paul  is  not  the  means  of  salvation, 
as  it  is  in  the  mystery  religions ;  it  is  only  one  of  the  effects  of 
salvation.  This  difference  is  no  mere  matter  of  detail.  On  the 
contrary,  it  involves  a  contrast  between  two  entirely  different 
worlds  of  thought  and  life. 

The  message  of  Paul,  then,  was  a  "gospel,"  a  piece  of  news 
about  something  that  had  happened.  As  has  well  been  ob- 
served,1 the  characteristic  New  Testament  words  are  the 
words  that  deal  with  "gospel,"  "teaching,"  and  the  transmission 
of  an  historical  message.  Paul  was  not  a  "gnostic,"  but  a 
witness ;  salvation,  according  to  his  teaching,  came  not  through 
a  mystic  vision,  but  through  the  hearing  of  faith.2 

Thus,  so  far  as  the  idea  of  "knowledge"  is  concerned, 
Reitzenstein  has  not  been  successful  in  showing  any  dependence 
of  Paul  upon  the  mystery  religions.  But  how  is  it  with  regard 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  "Spirit"? 

In  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15,  the  "spiritual  man"  is  contrasted  with 
the  "psychic  man."  The  spiritual  man  is  the  man  who  has 
the  Spirit  of  God ;  the  psychic  man  is  the  man  who  has  only  a 
human  soul.  It  is  not  really  correct  to  say  that  the  spiritual 
man,  according  to  Paul,  is  a  man  not  who  has  the  Spirit  but 
who  is  the  Spirit.  Paul  avoids  such  an  expression  for  the  same 
reason  that  prevents  his  speaking  of  the  "deification"  of  the 
Christian.  Everywhere  in  Paul  the  personal  distinction  be- 
tween the  believer  and  the  Christ  who  dwells  in  him  is  care- 
fully preserved.  His  "mysticism"  (if  the  word  may  be  used 
thus  loosely)  is  never  pantheistic.  Here  already  is  to  be  found 
a  most  vital  difference  between  Paul  and  Hermes  Trismegistus. 

But  this  observation  constitutes  a  digression.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  return  to  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15.  The  spiritual  man,  ac- 

1Heinrici,    Die    Hermes-Mystik    und    das    Nene    Testament,    1918,    pp. 
178-180. 
"Compare  Oepke,  op.  cit.,  pp.  40ff. 


266  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

cording  to  that  passage,  is  the  man  who  has  the  Spirit  of  God ; 
the  psychic  man  is  the  man  who  has  only  a  human  soul.  Reit- 
zenstein  apparently  insists  that  the  "only"  in  this  sentence 
should  be  left  out.  The  psychic  man,  according  to  Paul,  he 
says,  has  a  soul;  the  spiritual  man  has  no  "soul"  but  has 
the  divine  Spirit  instead.  But  such  a  representation  is  not 
really  Pauline.1  Paul  clearly  teaches  that  the  human  soul 
continues  to  exist  even  after  the  divine  Spirit  has  entered  in. 
"The  Spirit  himself,"  he  says,  "beareth  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  children  of  God"  (Rom.  viii.  16).  Here  "our 
spirit"  clearly  means  "our  soul,"  and  is  expressly  distinguished 
from  the  divine  Spirit.  At  every  point,  then,  the  attempt  to 
find  a  pantheistic  mysticism  in  Paul  breaks  down  before  the 
intensely  personal  character  of  his  religion.  The  relation  of 
Paul  to  the  risen  Christ,  intimate  as  it  is,  mediated  as  it  is 
by  the  all-pervasive  Spirit,  is  a  relation  of  one  person  to  an- 
other. 

But  it  is  still  necessary  to  return  to  the  Pauline  contrast 
between  the  "spiritual  man"  and  the  "psychic  man."  Reit- 
zenstein  lays  great  stress  upon  that  contrast.  He  regards  it 
as  lying  at  the  heart  of  Paul's  religion,  and  he  thinks  that 
he  can  explain  it  from  the  Hellenistic  mystery  religions.  Ap- 
parently the  method  of  Reitzenstein  can  be  tested  at  this 
point  if  it  can  be  tested  at  all.  If  it  does  not  succeed  in  ex- 
plaining the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  upon  which  the 
chief  stress  is  laid,  probably  it  will  explain  nothing  at  all. 

At  first  sight  the  material  adduced  by  Reitzenstein  is  im- 
pressive. It  is  impressive  by  its  very  bulk.  The  reader  is 
led  by  the  learned  investigator  into  many  new  and  entranc- 
ing fields.  Surely  after  so  long  a  journey  the  traveler  must 
arrive  at  last  at  his  desired  goal.  But  somehow  the  goal  is 
never  reached.  All  of  Reitzenstein's  material,  strange  to  say, 
seems  to  prove  the  exact  opposite  of  what  Reitzenstein  desires. 

Reitzenstein  desires  apparently  to  explain  the  Pauline  use 
of  the  adjectives  "psychic"  and  "spiritual"  2  in  1  Cor.  ii. 
14,  15;  apparently  he  is  quite  sure  that  the  usage  finds  its 
sufficient  basis  in  Hermes  Trismegistus  and  related  sources. 

*See  especially  Vos,  "The  Eschatological  Aspect  of  the  Pauline  Con- 
ception of  the  Spirit,"  in  Biblical  and  Theological  Studies  by  the  Members 
of  the  Faculty  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  1912,  pp.  248-250. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION          267 

But  the  plain  fact  —  almost  buried  though  it  is  under  the  mass 
of  irrelevant  material  —  is  that  the  adjective  "psychic"  and 
the  adjective  "spiritual"  occur  each  only  once  in  the  sources 
which  are  examined,  and  that  they  never  occur,  as  in  1  Cor. 
ii.  14,  15,  in  contrast  with  each  other.1  What  is  even  far 
more  disconcerting,  however,  is  that  the  noun  "spirit"  2  is  not 
used  (certainly  not  used  ordinarily)  in  contrast  with  "soul,"3 
as  Paul  uses  it.  Certainly  it  is  not  so  used  ordinarily  in  the 
Hermetic  writings.  On  the  contrary,  in  Hermes  the  spirit 
appears,  in  certain  passages,  not  as  something  that  is  higher 
than  the  soul,  but  as  something  that  is  lower.  Apparently  the 
common  Greek  materialistic  use  of  "pneuma"  to  indicate 
"breath"  or  "wind"  or  the  like  is  here  followed.  At  any  rate, 
the  terminology  is  as  remote  as  could  be  imagined  from  that 
of  Paul.  There  is  absolutely  no  basis  for  the  Pauline  con- 
trast between  the  human  soul  and  the  divine  Spirit.4 

It  might  be  supposed  that  this  fact  would  weaken  Reitzen- 
stein's  devotion  to  his  theory.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  If, 
says  Reitzenstein,  "Spirit"  in  Hermes  Trismegistus  does  not 
indicate  something  higher  than  "soul,"  that  is  because  the 
original  popular  terminology  has  here  suffered  philosophical 
revision.  The  popular  term  "spirit"  has  been  made  to  give 
place  to  the  more  philosophical  term  "mind."  Where 
Hermes  says  "mind,"  therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  to  restore 
the  term  "spirit,"  and  an  admirable  basis  is  discovered  for  the 
Pauline  terminology.  But  how  does  Reitzenstein  know  that 
the  popular,  unphilosophical  term  in  the  mystery  religions  was 
"spirit,"  rather  than  "mind"  or  the  like?  The  extant  pagan 
sources  do  not  clearly  attest  the  term  "spirit"  in  the  sense 
which  is  here  required.  Apparently  then  the  only  reason  for 
positing  the  existence  of  such  a  term  in  pagan  mystery  religion 
is  that  it  must  have  existed  in  pagan  mystery  religion  if  the 

1  On  the  occurrence  of  ^-VXIKOS  at  the  beginning  of  Dieterich's 
"Mithras  Liturgy"  (line  24),  see  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  1913,  p.  141, 
Anm.  1.  On  the  occurrence  of  irvevnariKos,  see  Reitzenstein,  Hellenis- 
tische  Mysterienreligionen,  2te  Aufl.,  1920,  p.  162.  Compare  Bousset, 
Jesus  der  Herr,  1916,  pp.  80f. 


*For  this  whole  subject,  see  especially  the  comprehensive  monograph 
of  Burton  (Spirit,  Soul,  and  Flesh,  [1918]),  with  the  summary  on  pp. 
205-207. 


268          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Pauline  use  of  it  is  to  be  explained.  It  looks,  therefore,  as 
though  the  learned  argument  of  Reitzenstein  had  been  moving 
all  the  time  in  a  circle.  After  pursuing  a  roundabout  course 
through  many  centuries  and  many  races  of  men,  after  acquiring 
boundless  treasures  of  curious  information,  after  impressing 
the  whole  world  with  the  learning  thus  acquired,  the  explorer 
arrives  at  last  at  the  exact  point  where  he  started,  and  no  richer 
than  when  he  first  set  out !  The  Pauline  terminology  can- 
not be  explained  except  as  coming  from  the  mystery  religions ; 
therefore,  says  Reitzenstein  in  effect,  it  must  have  had  a  place 
in  the  mystery  religions  even  though  the  extant  sources  provide 
no  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact.1 

But  is  there  not  some  way  out  of  the  vicious  circle?  Is 
there  not  some  witness  to  the  terminology  which  is  required? 
The  investigator  turns  naturally  to  Philo.  Philo  is  thought 
to  be  dependent  upon  the  mysteries ;  perhaps  he  will  attest 
the  required  mystical  use  of  the  term  "spirit."  But,  alas, 
Philo  apparently  deserts  his  friends.  Except  where  he  is  in- 
fluenced by  the  Old  Testament  use  of  the  word  "spirit,"  he 
seems  to  prefer  other  terminology.2  His  terminology,  then, 
like  that  of  Hermes  must  be  thought  to  have  suffered  philosoph- 
ical reversal.  And  still  the  required  mystery  terminology 
eludes  the  eye  of  the  investigator. 

Of  course  there  is  one  place  where  the  terms  "Spirit"  and 
"spiritual"  are  exalted  above  the  terms  "psyche"  and  "psy- 
chic," in  quite  the  manner  that  is  desired.  That  place  is  found 
in  the  Christian  Gnosticism  of  the  second  century.  But  the 
Gnostics  of  the  second  century  are  plainly  dependent  upon 
Paul;  they  vie  with  the  Catholic  Church  in  their  appeal  to 
the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  origin  of  their  use  of  the  terms 
"psychic"  and  "spiritual"  is  therefore  only  too  plain.  At  least 
it  might  seem  to  be  plain.  But  Reitzenstein  rejects  the  com- 
mon view.3  According  to  Reitzenstein,  the  Gnostics  have 

1  See  Burton,  op.  cit.,  p.  206:  "For  the  Pauline  exaltation  of  -n-vevna 
over  \f/vxh  there  is  no  observed  previous  parallel.  It  marks  an  advance 
on  Philo,  for  which  there  is  no  precedent  in  non-Jewish  Greek,  and  only 
partial  and  imperfect  parallels  in  the  magical  papyri.  It  is  the  reverse  of 
Hermetic  usage." 

3  See  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  pp.  138,  140,  141  (Anm.  2). 

8  Also  Bousset,  op.  cit.,  pp.  140f.  According  to  Bousset,  it  is  unlikely 
that  "the  few  and  difficult  terminological  explanations  of  Paul  .  .  .  should 
have  exerted  such  extensive  influence  upon  the  most  diverse  Gnostic  systems." 
But  is  the  teaching  of  Paul  about  the  Spirit  as  higher  than  the  soul  really 
obscure?  Does  it  not  appear  plainly  all  through  the  Epistles? 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  269 

derived  their  usage  not  from  Paul  but  from  the  pre-Pauline 
mystery  religions ;  and  the  Gnostic  usage  of  "Spirit"  as  higher 
than  "soul"  is  the  source  of  the  Hermetic  usage  of  "soul"  as 
higher  than  "spirit,"  which,  Reitzenstein  believes,  has  been  de- 
rived from  it  by  philosophical  revision.  But  the  argument  is 
beyond  the  reach  even  of  J.  Kroll,  who  cannot  be  accused  of 
theological  interest.  As  has  already  been  observed,  Kroll 
insists  that  the  Gnostic  usage  is  here  secondary.1 

One  argument  remains.  The  trouble,  from  Reitzenstein's 
point  of  view,  is  that  when  the  Hermetic  writings  ought,  in 
the  interests  of  the  theory,  to  say  "Spirit"  they  actually  say 
"mind."  It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  prove  that  "mind" 
means  the  same  thing  as  "spirit."  A  proof  is  found  by  Reit- 
zenstein in  Paul  himself,  in  1  Cor.  ii.  15,  16.  "But  the  spiritual 
man,"  says  Paul,  "examines  all  things,  but  he  himself  is  ex- 
amined by  none.  For  'who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord, 
that  he  should  instruct  Him?'  But  we  have  the  mind  of  Christ." 
Here,  says  Reitzenstein,2  the  possession  of  the  "mind"  of  Christ 
makes  a  man  a  "spiritual"  man,  that  is,  a  man  who  has  the 
"Spirit."  Hence  "mind"  is  the  same  thing  as  "spirit."  Hence 
— such,  at  least,  would  seem  to  be  the  only  inference  from  the 
passage  in  1  Corinthians  which  would  really  establish  Reitzen- 
stein's theory — when  Hermes  Trismegistus  says  "mind,"  it  is 
legitimate  to  substitute  "spirit"  in  order  thus  to  find  the  basis 
for  the  ordinary  Pauline  terminology. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  "mind"  in  1  Cor.  ii.  16b 
is  the  same  as  "spirit."  If  a  man  has  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he 
also  has  the  mind  of  Christ;  the  Spirit  gives  him  an  under- 
standing of  the  thoughts  of  Christ.  Conversely,  the  possession 
of  the  mind  of  Christ  is  a  proof  that  the  man  has  the  Spirit 
of  Christ ;  it  is  only  the  Spirit  who  could  have  given  him  his 
understanding  of  Christ's  thoughts.  But  it  does  not  follow 
by  any  means  that  the  term  "mind"  means  the  same  thing  as  the 
term  "spirit."  Moreover,  the  passage  is  entirely  isolated ;  and 
the  choice  of  the  unusual  word  "mind"  may  be  due  to  the 
form  of  the  Septuagint  passage  which  Paul  is  citing. 

At  any  rate,  the  plain  fact  is  that  the  terminology  in 
Hermes  Trismegistus  and  related  sources  is  strikingly  differ- 
ent from  that  of  Paul.  Reitzenstein  finds  himself  in  the  pe- 
culiar position  of  proving  that  Paul  is  dependent  upon  pagan 

JSee  above,  p.  249,  with  footnote  2. 

*  Hellenistische  Mysterienreligionen,  2te  Aufl.,  1920,  pp.  189f, 


270          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

sources  by  the  fact  that  the  Pauline  terminology  does  not 
occur  in  the  pagan  sources.  It  will  not  do  for  him  to  say  that 
the  terminology  is  of  little  importance  and  that  the  ideas  of 
Paul,  if  not  the  terminology,  are  derived  from  the  pagan  mys- 
teries. For  it  is  just  Reitzenstein  who  insists  upon  the  impor- 
tance of  words  as  the  vehicle  of  ideas.  His  fundamental  argu- 
ment is  that  Paul  used  the  terminology  of  the  mystery  re- 
ligions, and  with  the  terminology  received  also  the  ideas.  It 
is  therefore  important  to  observe  that  Reitzenstein's  lexical 
parallel  utterly  breaks  down. 

But  if  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  was  not  derived 
from  the  pagan  mystery  religions,  whence  was  it  derived?  The 
answer  is  perfectly  plain.  It  was  derived  ultimately  from  the 
Old  Testament.1  Unquestionably,  indeed,  it  goes  far  beyond 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  enrichment  of  its  content  may  con- 
ceivably be  explained  in  various  ways.  The  Gospels  and  Acts 
explain  the  enrichment  as  due  partly  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Himself  and  to  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. This  explanation  will  be  rejected  for  the  most  part  by 
naturalistic  criticism.  Paul  explains  the  enrichment  as  due 
partly  to  the  experience  which  he  had  of  the  presence  of  Christ. 
This  explanation  is  regarded  as  no  explanation  at  all  by  the 
school  of  comparative  religion.  But  it  is  not  necessary  in  the 
present  connection  to  discuss  these  matters.  All  that  needs 
to  be  observed  now  is  that  the  basis  for  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  represented 
as  distinct  from  man  and  higher  than  man ;  there  is  no  question 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  a  usage  by  which  the  Spirit  is  degraded, 
as  in  Hermes  Trismegistus,  below  the  soul.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, moreover,  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  bestowing  supernat- 
ural gifts  such  as  prophecy  and  producing  supernatural  ex- 
periences— exactly  as  in  Paul.  But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  ac- 
cording to  the  Old  Testament  is  something  more  than  prophecy 
or  any  momentary  experience ;  it  is  also  a  permanent  possession 
of  the  soul.  "Take  not  thy  holy  Spirit  from  me,"  says  the 

1  Bousset  (op.  cit.,  p.  141,  Anm.  2)  admits  that  the  terminology  of  Paul, 
especially  his  use  of  the  term  "Spirit"  instead  of  "mind"  and  his  use  of  the 
terms  in  the  contrast  between  "Spirit"  and  "flesh"  may  possibly  be  due 
partly  to  the  Old  Testament,  but  insists  that  such  terminological  influence 
does  not  touch  the  fundamentals  of  the  thought.  Such  admissions  are 
important,  despite  the  way  in  which  Bousset  qualifies  them. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION 

Psalmist.  (Ps.  li.  11.)  Let  the  student  first  examine  the  la- 
bored arguments  of  Reitzenstein,  let  him  examine  the  few  faint 
approaches  to  the  Pauline  terminology  which  have  been  gleaned 
from  pagan  sources,  mostly  late  and  of  uncertain  origin,  let 
him  observe  that  just  where  Greek  usage  approaches  Paul  most 
closely  in  form  (as  in  the  "divine  Spirit"  of  Menander),1  it 
is  most  diametrically  opposed  in  content,  let  him  reflect  that 
the  influence  of  pagan  usage  is  contrary  to  Paul's  own  con- 
sciousness. And  then  let  him  turn  to  the  Old  Testament !  Let 
him  remember  that  the  Pauline  use  of  the  Old  Testament  is  no 
matter  of  conjecture,  but  is  attested  everywhere  in  the  Epistles. 
And.  let  him  examine  the  Old  Testament  usage  in  detail.  The 
Pauline  terminology — "the  Holy  Spirit,"  the  "Spirit  of  God" 
— so  signally  lacking  in  early  pagan  sources,2  appears  here  in 
all  its  richness ;  and  with  the  terminology  go  the  depths  of  life. 
In  turning  from  Hermes  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  student 
has  turned  away  from  Stoic  pantheism,  away  from  the  polythe- 
ism of  the  mystery  religions,  away  from  the  fantastic  specula- 
tions of  a  decadent  philosophy,  to  the  presence  of  the  personal 
God.  And,  in  doing  so,  he  has  found  the  origin  of  the  religion 
of  Paul. 

Thus  the  lexical  argument  of  Reitzenstein  breaks  down 
at  the  decisive  points.  It  would  indeed  be  rash  to  assert  that 
Paul  never  uses  a  term  derived  from  the  pagan  mysteries. 
For  example,  in  Phil.  iv.  12  he  uses  the  verb  that  means  "to  be 
initiated."  "In  everything  and  in  all  things  I  have  been  ini- 
tiated," he  says,  "both  to  be  filled  and  to  suffer  hunger,  both 
to  abound  and  to  be  in  want."  But  this  example  shows  clearly 
how  little  importance  is  sometimes  to  be  attributed  to  the 
ultimate  derivation  of  a  word.  The  word  "initiate"  is  here 
used  in  a  purely  figurative  way.  It  is  doubtful  whether  there 
is  the  slightest  thought  of  its  original  significance.  The  word 
has  been  worn  down  by  repeated  use  almost  as  much  as,  for 
example,  the  word  which  means  "supply"  in  Gal.  iii.  5.  Ety- 
mologically  that  word  means  "to  be  the  leader  of  a  chorus." 
It  referred  originally  to  the  Athenian  custom  by  which  a 
wealthy  citizen  undertook  to  defray  the  cost  of  the  chorus  at 
one  of  the  dramatic  festivals.  But  later  it  was  used  to  desig- 
nate any  act  of  bountiful  supplying.  And  when  it  was  used  by 


'See  Burton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  114-116. 
2  Burton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  173-175,  187f. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Paul,  its  origin  was  entirely  forgotten.  It  would  be  ridiculous 
to  make  Paul  say  that  in  bestowing  the  Spirit  upon  the  Galatian 
Christians  God  acted  as  the  leader  of  a  chorus.  It  is  not  es- 
sentially different  with  the  verb  meaning  "to  be  initiated"  in 
Philippians.  In  both  cases,  an  institution  of  ancient  Hellenic 
life — in  the  forir.er  case,  the  religious  festivals,  in  the  latter 
rase,  the  mysteries — has  given  rise  to  the  use  of  a  word,  which 
found  its  way  into  the  Greek  world-language  of  the  Hellenistic 
age,  and  continued  to  be  used  even  where  there  was  no  thought 
of  its  ultimate  origin. 

This  example  is  instructive  because  the  context  in  the 
Philippians  passage  is  plainly  free  from  all  mystical  associa- 
tions. Plainly,  therefore,  the  use  of  a  word  derived  from  the 
mysteries  does  not  necessarily  indicate  any  agreement  with 
the  mystical  point  of  view.  Indeed,  it  may  perhaps  indicate 
the  exact  opposite.  If  the  idea  "to  initiate"  had  associations 
connected  with  the  center  of  Paul's  religious  life,  it  is  per- 
haps doubtful  whether  Paul  could  have  used  the  word  in  so 
purely  figurative  a  way,  just  as  he  would  not  have  used  the 
word  meaning  "to  be  the  leader  of  a  chorus"  in  referring  to 
God's  bestowal  of  the  Spirit,  if  he  had  had  the  slightest  thought 
of  the  Athenian  festivals. 

If,  then,  it  should  appear  that  Paul  uses  a  vocabulary 
derived  from  the  mysteries,  the  fact  would  not  necessarily  be 
of  any  significance  whatever  in  determining  the  origin  of  his 
religion.  Every  missionary  is  obliged  to  take  the  words  which 
have  been  used  in  the  religion  from  which  converts  are  to  be  won 
in  order  to  express  the  new  ideas.  Translators  of  the  Bible 
in  the  modern  mission  fields  are  obliged  to  proceed  in  this  way. 
Yet  the  procedure  does  not  necessarily  involve  any  modification 
of  Christian  ideas.  The  old  words  are  given  loftier  meanings 
in  order  to  become  the  vehicle  of  Christian  truth;  the  original 
meanings  provide  merely  a  starting-point  for  the  new  teaching. 
Conceivably,  the  apostle  Paul  might  have  proceeded  in  this 
way ;  conceivably  he  might  have  used  words  connected  with  the 
mystery  religions  in  order  to  proclaim  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  evidence  for  such  an  employment 
of  a  mystery  terminology  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  very  slight. 
In  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7,  Paul  uses  the  terms  "mystery"  and  "perfect" 
or  "full-grown."  1  The  former  word  was  sometimes  used  to 

and 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  273 

designate  the  "mysteries"  in  the  technical,  religious  sense.  But 
it  is  also  used  in  Greek  in  a  very  much  more  general  way.  And 
certainly  as  it  is  used  in  Paul  it  is  very  remote  from  the 
technical  meaning.  The  Christian  "mystery"  according  to 
Paul  is  not  something  that  is  to  be  kept  secret  on  principle, 
like  the  mysteries  of  Eleusis,  but  it  is  something  which,  though 
it  was  formerly  hidden  in  the  counsels  of  God,  is  now  to  be 
made  known  to  all.  Some,  it  is  true,  may  never  be  able  to 
receive  it.  But  that  which  is  necessary  in  order  that  it  may 
be  received  is  not  "gnosis"  or  an  initiation.  It  is  rather  ac- 
ceptance of  a  message  and  the  holy  life  that  follows.  "If 
you  would  know  the  deep  things  of  God,"  Paul  says  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, "then  stop  your  quarreling."  We  find  ourselves  here 
in  a  circle  of  ideas  quite  different  from  that  of  the  mystery 
religions.  As  for  the  word  "teleios,"  it  seems  not  to  have 
been  discovered  in  pagan  sources  in  the  sense  of  "initiated," 
which  is  sometimes  attributed  to  it  in  1  Corinthians.  Appar- 
ently it  means  simply  "full-grown" ;  Paul  contrasts  the  full- 
grown  man  with  the  babes  in  Christ. 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  improbable  that  the  converts  of  Paul, 
in  any  great  numbers,  had  lived  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  mys- 
tery religions.1  At  any  rate,  Paul  certainly  does  not  use 
the  technical  vocabulary  of  the  mysteries.  That  fact  has  been 
amply  demonstrated  by  Von  Harnack  in  the  illuminating  study 
which  he  has  devoted  to  the  "terminology  of  the  new  birth."  2 
The  earliest  genuine  technical  term  in  the  vocabulary  of  the 
early  Church,  Von  Harnack  believes,  is  "illumination,"  as 
Justin  Martyr  uses  it  to  designate  baptism.  Certainly  in  the 
earlier  period,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  any  such 
fixity  in  the  use  of  terms  as  would  have  appeared  if  the  New 
Testament  writers  had  adopted  a  technical  vocabulary. 

Therefore,  if  the  dependence  of  Paul  upon  the  mystery 
religions  is  to  be  demonstrated,  the  lexical  method  of  Reitzen- 
stein  must  be  abandoned.  The  terminology  of  Paul  is  not 
derived  from  the  terminology  of  the  mysteries.  But  possibly, 
it  may  be  said,  although  there  is  no  clear  dependence  in  the 
terminology,  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Paul  may  still  be  shown 

1  Oepke,  Die  Missionspredigt  des  Apostels  Paulus,  1920,  p.  26. 

aVon  Harnack,  "Die  Terminologie  der  Wiedergeburt  und  verwandter 
Erlebnisse  in  der  altesten  Kirche,"  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Oe- 
schichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  xlii,  1918,  pp.  97-143.  See  especially 
pp.  139-143. 


274  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

to  have  come  from  the  surrounding  paganism.  It  is  in  this 
more  cautious  form  that  the  hypothesis  is  maintained  by  Bous- 
set;  at  least  Bousset  is  less  inclined  than  Reitzenstein  to  lay 
stress  upon  verbal  coincidences.1  The  entire  outlook  of 
Paul,  Bousset  believes,  regardless  of  the  way  in  which  that  out- 
look is  expressed,  was  derived  from  the  mystical  piety  of  the 
Hellenistic  age;  it  was  from  his  pagan  environment  that  Paul 
derived  the  pessimistic  estimate  of  human  nature  which  is  at 
the  basis  of  his  teaching. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  admitted  very  freely  that  Paul 
was  convinced  of  the  insufficiency  of  human  nature,  and  that 
that  conviction  was  also  prevalent  in  the  paganism  of  the 
Hellenistic  age.  The  Hellenistic  age,  like  Paul,  recognized 
the  need  of  redemption ;  salvation,  it  was  believed,  could  not 
be  attained  by  unaided  human  resources,  but  was  a  gift  of 
higher  powers.  But  this  similarity  is  quite  insufficient  to  estab- 
lish any  relationship  of  dependence.  Both  Paulinism  and  the 
Hellenistic  mystery  religions  were  religions  of  redemption. 
But  there  have  been  many  religions  of  redemption,  in  many  ages 
and  among  many  peoples,  which  have  been  entirely  independent 
of  one  another.  It  will  probably  not  be  maintained,  for  ex- 
ample, that  early  Buddhism  stood  in  any  fundamental  causal 
relation  to  the  piety  of  the  Hellenistic  age.  Yet  early 
Buddhism  was  a  religion  of  redemption. 

No  attempt  indeed  should  be  made  to  underestimate  the 
community  of  interest  which  binds  all  redemptive  religions  to- 
gether and  separates  them  sharply  from  all  others.  Common 
recognition  of  the  fundamental  evil  of  the  world  is  a  far 
closer  bond  of  union  than  agreement  about  the  details  of  con- 
duct. Gautama  under  the  tree  of  knowledge  in  India,  seeking 
in  ascetic  meditation  for  freedom  from  the  misery  of  existence, 
was  inwardly  far  nearer  to  the  apostle  Paul  than  is  many  a 
modern  liberal  preacher  who  loves  to  read  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Ephesians  in  Church.  But  such  community  of  interest  does 
not  indicate  any  relation  of  dependence.  It  might  do  so  if  the 
sense  of  human  inadequacy  were  an  abnormal  thing.  In  that 
case,  the  appearance  of  a  pessimistic  view  of  human  nature 
would  require  explanation.  But  if  human  nature  is  really 
hopeless  and  helpless  in  an  evil  world,  then  the  independent 
1  But  compare  Jesus  der  Herr,  1916,  pp.  80-85. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  275 

recognition  of  the  fact  by  many  men  of  many  minds  is  no  longer 
cause  for  wonder. 

Historical  judgments  at  this  point,  then,  are  apt  to  be 
influenced  by  the  presuppositions  of  the  investigator.  To 
Bousset  the  whole  notion  of  redemption  is  distasteful.  It 
seems  to  him  to  be  an  abnormal,  an  unhealthy  thing.  To  ex- 
plain its  emergence,  therefore,  in  the  course  of  human  history 
he  is  prone  to  look  for  special  causes.  So  he  explains  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  radical  evil  of  human  nature  as  being 
due  to  the  piety  of  a  decadent  age.  But  if  this  world  is  really 
an  evil  world,  as  Paul  says  it  is,  then  recognition  of  the  fact 
will  appear  spontaneously  at  many  points.  For  a  time,  in  an 
age  of  high  achievements  like  the  age  of  Pericles,  the  funda- 
mental problem  of  life  may  be  forgotten.  But  the  problem 
is  always  there  and  will  force  itself  ever  anew  into  the  con- 
sciousness of  men. 

At  any  rate,  whether  desirable  or  not,  the  longing  for 
redemption  is  a  fundamental  fact  of  history,  and  may  be  shown 
to  have  emerged  independently  at  many  points.  The  character 
of  Paulinism  as  a  redemptive  religion,  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
human  depravity,  is  therefore  insufficient  to  establish  depend- 
ence of  Paul  upon  the  mystery  religions  of  the  Hellenistic  age. 
Dependence  could  be  established  only  by  similarity  in  the  form 
in  which  the  doctrine  of  depravity  appears.  But  as  a  matter 
of  fact  such  similarity  is  strikingly  absent.  The  Pauline  use 
of  the  term  "flesh"  to  denote  that  in  which  evil  resides  can 
apparently  find  no  real  parallel  whatever  in  pagan  usage.  And 
the  divergence  appears  not  only  in  terminology  but  also  in 
thought.  At  first  sight  there  might  seem  to  be  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  flesh  and  the  Greek  doctrine 
of  the  evil  of  matter,  which  appears  in  the  Orphic  sects,  then 
in  Plato  and  in  his  successors.  But  the  parallel  breaks  down 
upon  closer  examination.  According  to  Plato,  the  body  is 
evil  because  it  is  material;  it  is  the  prison-house  of  the  soul.  i 
Nothing  could  really  be  more  remote  from  the  thought  of  Paul. 
According  to  Paul,  the  connection  of  soul  and  body  is  en- 
tirely normal,  and  the  soul  apart  from  the  body  is  in  a  con- 
dition of  nakedness.  It  is  true,  the  body  will  be  changed  at  the 
resurrection  or  at  the  coming  of  Christ;  it  will  be  made  more 
adequate  for  the  Kingdom  of  God.  But  at  any  rate,  there  is 


276  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

in  Paul  no  doctrine  of  the  inherent  evil  of  matter.  The  real 
starting-point  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  flesh  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  passages  where  "flesh"  de- 
notes human  nature  in  its  frailty.  Certainly  the  Pauline 
teaching  is  far  more  highly  developed  than  the  teaching  of  the 
Old  Testament.  But  the  Old  Testament  provides  the  starting- 
point.  The  "flesh"  in  Paul,  when  it  is  used  in  its  developed, 
ethical  sense,  does  not  mean  the  material  nature  of  man;  it 
includes  rather  all  that  man  receives  by  ordinary  generation. 
The  contrast  between  "flesh"  and  "Spirit"  therefore  is  not  the 
contrast  between  matter  and  spirit;  it  is  a  contrast  between 
human  nature,  of  which  sin  has  taken  possession,  and  the  Spirit 
of  God. 

Certainly,  at  any  rate,  whatever  solution  may  be  found 
for  the  intricate  problem  of  the  Pauline  use  of  the  term 
"flesh,"  the  Pauline  pessimism  with  regard  to  human  nature 
is  totally  different  from  the  dualistic  pessimism  of  the  Hel- 
lenistic age.  It  is  different  because  it  does  not  make  evil  re- 
side in  matter  as  such.  But  it  is  different  also  in  a  far  more 
fundamental  way.  It  is  different  in  its  ethical  character. 
The  Hellenistic  age  was  conscious  of  the  need  of  salvation; 
and  salvation,  it  was  recognized,  must  come  from  outside  of 
man.  But  this  consciousness  of  need  was  not  always,  and  not 
clearly,  connected  with  questions  of  right  and  wrong.  The  Hel- 
lenistic age  was  conscious  of  inadequacy,  of  slavery  to  fate,  of 
the  futility  of  human  life  as  it  is  actually  lived  upon  the 
earth.  Here  and  there,  no  doubt,  there  was  also  a  recognition 
of  existing  moral  evil,  and  a  longing  for  a  better  life.  But 
such  longings  were  almost  submerged  amidst  longings  of  a  non- 
ethical  kind.  The  mysteries  were  cherished  for  the  most  part 
not  because  they  offered  goodness  but  because  they  offered  hap- 
piness. 

In  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  the  consciousness  of  human 
inadequacy  is  essentially  a  consciousness  of  sin.  And  redemp- 
tion is  desired  because  it  satisfies  the  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness.  At  this  point  the  contrast  with  the  Hellenistic 
mystery  religions  is  profound.  The  religion  of  Paul  is  like 
the  mystery  religions  in  that  it  is  a  religion  of  redemption. 
But  there  the  similarity  ceases.  There  is  certainly  no  such 
similarity  in  the  conception  of  that  from  which  men  are  to  be 
redeemed  as  would  raise  any  presumption  of  dependence  in  the 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  277 

presentation  of  the  means  of  redemption.  And  it  is  dependence 
in  the  presentation  of  the  means  of  redemption  which  alone 
would  serve  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  religion  of  Paul.  It  is 
unwarranted  to  argue  that  because  Paul  agrees  with  the  mys- 
tery religions  in  a  longing  for  redemption  therefore  he  must  have 
derived  from  the  mystery  religions  his  method  of  satisfying 
the  longing — namely  his  conception  of  the  redemptive  work 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  even  in  the  longing  for  re- 
demption— to  say  nothing  of  the  way  of  satisfying  the  longing 
—Paul  was  totally  different  from  the  mysteries.  The  long- 
ing which  was  aroused  in  the  devotees  of  the  mysteries  was  a 
longing  for  a  happier  immortality,  a  freedom  from  the  pres- 
sure of  fate ;  the  longing  which  Paul  sought  to  arouse  in  those 
for  whom  he  labored  was  a  longing  for  righteousness  and  for 
acceptance  by  the  righteous  God. 

This  difference  is  intimately  connected  with  a  highly 
significant  fact — the  presence  in  Paul  of  a  "forensic"  view 
of  salvation.  Salvation,  according  to  Paul,  is  not  only  sal- 
vation from  the  power  of  sin;  it  is  also  salvation  from  the 
guilt  of  sin.  Not  only  regeneration  is  needed,  if  a  man  is  to  be 
saved,  but  also  justification.  At  this  point,  there  is  apparently 
in  the  mystery  religions  no  parallel  worthy  of  the  name.  At 
least  there  is  none  if  Reitzenstein's  attempt  to  exhibit  a  paral- 
lel *  is  at  all  adequate ;  for  Reitzenstein  has  succeeded  only 
in  setting  in  clearer  light  the  enormous  difference  at  this  point 
between  Paul  and  his  pagan  environment.  The  word  "justify" 
appears,  indeed,  in  the  Hermetic  corpus  (xiii.  9),  but  as  Reit- 
zenstein himself  observes,  it  means  not  "declare  righteous"  but 
"make  righteous."  A  parallel  with  Paul  can  be  set  up,  there- 
fore, only  if  "justify"  in  Paul  also  means  "make  righteous." 
Reitzenstein  actually  finds  such  a  meaning  in  Rom.  vi.  7,  and 
in  Rom.  viii.  30.  But  the  expedient  is  desperate  in  the  ex- 
treme. It  will  probably  be  unnecessary  to  review  again  the 
absolutely  overwhelming  evidence  by  which  the  word  "justify" 
in  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  shown  to  mean  not  "make  righteous" 
but  "declare  righteous."  Without  the  slightest  question  Paul 
did  maintain  a  forensic  view  of  salvation.  The  believer,  ac- 
cording to  Paul,  is  in  himself  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God.  But 
he  is  given  a  sentence  of  acquittal,  he  is  "justified,"  because 

1  Reitzenstein,    Die    hellenistischen    Mysterienreligionen,    2te    AuflL    pp 
112-116. 


278          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Christ  has  borne  on  the  cross  the  curse  of  the  Law  which  rightly 
rested  upon  those  whom  Christ  died  to  save. 

The  presence  of  this  forensic  element  in  the  teaching  of 
Paul  is  universally  or  generally  recognized;  and  it  is  usually 
admitted  to  be  not  Greek  but  Jewish.  But  there  is  a  tendency 
among  recent  scholars  to  minimize  its  importance.  According 
to  Wrede,  the  forensic  conception  of  salvation,  the  complex 
of  ideas  centering  around  justification  apart  from  the  works 
of  the  Law,  was  merely  a  weapon  forged  by  Paul  in  the  exi- 
gencies of  controversy.1  Against  the  Judaizing  contention  for 
the  continued  validity  of  the  Law  Paul  developed  the  doctrine 
that  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  Law  upon  sin  was  borne  by 
Christ,  so  that  for  the  believer  the  bondage  of  the  Law  is  over. 
But,  Wrede  believes,  this  whole  conception  was  of  minor  im- 
portance in  Paul's  own  life;  it  was  merely  necessary  in  order 
that  he  might  refute  the  Judaizers  and  so  continue  his  free 
Gentile  mission.  A  somewhat  similar  view  is  advocated  by 
Bousset;  Bousset  believes,  at  least,  that  the  forensic  concep- 
tion of  salvation  occupies  a  subordinate  place  in  the  thought 
and  life  of  Paul. 

But  there  could  be  no  greater  mistake.  The  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  alone  apart  from  the  works  of  the  Law 
appears  indeed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as  a  weapon 
against  the  Judaizers.  But  why  was  Paul  opposed  to  the  Juda- 
izers in  the  first  place?  Certainly  it  was  not  merely  because 
the  Judaizing  demand  that  Gentile  Christians  should  be  circum- 
cised and  keep  the  Law  would  interfere  in  a  practical  way  with 
the  Gentile  mission.  Paul  was  not  like  some  modern  leaders  of 
the  Church,  who  are  interested  in  mere  bigness ;  he  was  not 
interested  in  the  extension  of  the  Church  if  such  extension 
involved  the  sacrifice  of  principle.  Nothing  could  be  more 
utterly  unhistorical  than  the  representation  of  Paul  as  a  prac- 
tical missionary,  developing  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  in  order  to  get  rid  of  a  doctrine  of  the  Law  which 
would  be  a  hindrance  in  the  way  of  his  Gentile  mission.  Such 
a  representation  reverses  the  real  state  of  the  case.  The 
real  reason  why  Paul  was  devoted  to  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  was  not  that  it  made  possible  the  Gentile  mis- 
sion, but  rather  that  it  was  true.  Paul  was  not  devoted  to  the 

1  "Kampfeslehre."     See  Wrede,  Paulus,  1904,  pp.   72ff.    (English   Trans- 
lation, Paul,  1907,  pp.   122ff.). 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  279 

doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  because  of  the  Gentile  mis- 
sion; he  was  devoted  to  the  Gentile  mission  because  of  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  And  he  was  opposed  to  the 
Judaizers,  not  merely  because  they  constituted  a  hindrance  in 
the  way  of  the  Gentile  work,  but  because  they  made  the  cross  of 
Christ  of  none  effect.  "If  righteousness  is  through  the  law, 
then  Christ  died  in  vain"  (Gal.  ii.  21).  These  words  are  at 
the  very  heart  of  Paul's  life;  for  they  involve  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  the  grace  of  God. 

There  could  be  no  greater  error,  therefore,  than  that  of 
representing  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
as  a  mere  afterthought,  as  a  mere  weapon  in  controversy.  Paul 
was  interested  in  salvation  from  the  guilt  of  sin  no  whit  less 
than  in  salvation  from  the  power  of  sin,  in  justification  no  whit 
less  than  in  the  "new  creation."  Indeed,  it  is  a  great  mis- 
take to  separate  the  two  sides  of  his  message.  There  lies  the 
root  error  of  the  customary  modern  formula  for  explaining 
the  origin  of  the  Pauline  theology.  According  to  that  formula, 
the  forensic  element  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation,  which  cen- 
ters in  justification,  was  derived  from  Judaism,  and  the  vital 
or  essential  element  which  centers  in  the  new  creation  was  de- 
rived from  paganism.  In  reality,  the  two  elements  are  inex- 
tricably intertwined.  The  sense  of  guilt  was  always  central 
in  the  longing  for  salvation  which  Paul  desired  to  induce  in 
his  hearers,  and  imparted  to  that  longing  an  ethical  quality 
which  was  totally  lacking  in  the  mystery  religions.  And  sal- 
vation in  the  Pauline  churches  consisted  not  merely  in  the 
assurance  of  a  blessed  immortality,  not  merely  in  the  assurance 
of  a  present  freedom  from  the  bondage  of  fate,  not  merely  even 
in  the  possession  of  a  new  power  of  holy  living,  but  also,  and 
everywhere,  in  the  consciousness  that  the  guilt  of  sin  had  been 
removed  by  the  cross  of  Christ. 

There  is  no  affinity,  therefore,  between  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  salvation  and  that  which  is  found  in  the  mystery  re- 
ligions. The  terminology  is  strikingly  different,  and  the  dif- 
ference is  even  greater  in  the  underlying  ideas.  Paulinism 
is  like  the  mystery  religions  in  being  a  religion  of  redemption, 
but  within  the  great  category  of  redemptive  religions  there 
could  be  no  greater  contrast. 

This  conclusion  might  be  overthrown  if  certain  recent  con- 
tentions should  prove  to  be  correct  with  regard  to  the  second 


280  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

of  the  elements  in  Paulinism  which  are  being  derived  from 
pagan  religion.  This  second  element  is  found  in  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  In  the  teaching  of  Paul  about 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  are  told,  there  is  clearly 
to  be  observed  the  influence  of  the  mystery  religions. 

This  contention  depends  partly  upon  the  supposed  nature 
of  these  particular  sacraments  and  partly  upon  the  mere  fact 
of  the  presence  of  sacraments  in  the  religion  of  Paul. 

With  regard  to  the  nature  of  these  particular  sacraments 
there  might  seem  at  first  sight  to  be  a  parallel  with  the  mystery 
religions.  The  mysteries  usually  had  connected  with  them 
ablutions  of  one  kind  or  another  and  some  sort  of  partaking 
of  sacred  food.  But  it  is  singularly  difficult  to  determine  the 
meaning  of  these  practices.  The  various  ablutions  which  pre- 
ceded the  celebration  of  the  mysteries  may  have  been  often 
nothing  more  than  symbols  of  cleansing;  and  such  symbolism 
is  so  natural  that  it  might  appear  independently  at  many 
places.  It  appears,  for  example,  highly  developed  among  the 
Jews ;  and  in  the  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist  it  assumes  a  form 
far  more  closely  akin  to  Christian  baptism  than  in  the  wash- 
ings which  were  connected  with  the  pagan  mysteries.  The  evi- 
dence for  a  sacramental  significance  of  the  ablutions  in  the 
mysteries,  despite  confident  assertions  on  the  part  of  some 
modern  writers,  is  really  very  slight.  Most  interesting,  per- 
haps, of  all  the  passages  which  have  been  cited  is  that  which 
appears  in  Pap.  Par.  47,  a  papyrus  letter  written  in  the  second 
century  before  Christ.1  This  passage  may  be  translated  as 
follows :  "For  you  are  untruthful  about  all  things  and  the  gods 
who  are  with  you  likewise,  because  they  have  cast  you  into  great 
matter  and  we  are  not  able  to  die,  and  if  you  see  that  we  are 
going  to  be  saved,  then  let  us  be  baptized."  It  is  possible  to 
understand  the  death  that  is  referred  to  as  the  mystical  death 
which  would  be  attained  in  the  mysteries,  and  to  connect  the 
baptism  with  that  death  and  with  the  consequent  salvation. 
There  would  thus  be  a  parallel,  external  at  least,  with  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Romans,  where  Paul  connects  baptism  with  the 

1  See  Reitzenstein,  op.  cit.,  2te  Aufl.,  pp.  85f.  The  passage  in  the  papyrus 
reads  as  follows  (Notices  et  extraits  des  manuscrits  de  la  bibliothtque 
imptriale,  xviii,  1865,  p.  315)  :  6n  \f/fv^  -KO.VTO.,  nai  oi  vapA.  <re  6toi  6/xokos,  on 
€v^k^\rjKa.v  V/JLO.S  els  v\-rjv  nty^X-rjv,  /cat  o&  5ufd/ie0a  it.-Kddo.vtlv'  K&V  I5ps  5n  /ueXXo/xep 
ffuBfivaiy  r6r€  /3a7TTifa>jLie0a.  The  letter  is  also  contained  in  Witkowski,  Epis- 
tulae  privatae  graecae,  1906,  pp.  63-66. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION 

death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  But  the  papyrus  passage 
is  hopelessly  obscure,  and  is  capable  of  very  different  interpre- 
tations. Moulton  and  Milligan,  for  example,  take  the  verb 
"to  be  baptized,"  in  a  purely  figurative  sense,  as  meaning 
simply  "to  be  overwhelmed  with  calamities."  l  According  to 
this  interpretation  the  reference  to  the  mysteries  disappears 
altogether.  At  any  rate,  the  passage,  if  it  does  refer  to  the 
mysteries,  is  altogether  isolated.  And  in  view  of  its  extreme 
obscurity  it  should  not  be  made  the  basis  of  far-reaching  con- 
clusions. What  is  now  being  maintained  is  not  that  the  wash- 
ings which  were  connected  with  the  mysteries  were  never  sacra- 
mental. It  is  incautious  to  make  such  sweeping  negative  as- 
sertions. But  so  far  as  the  pre-Pauline  period  is  concerned,  the 
evidence  which  has  been  adduced  is,  to  say  the  least,  exceed- 
ingly scanty.  It  has  by  no  means  been  proved  that  in  the 
pre-Pauline  mysteries,  "baptism"  was  connected  closely  with 
the  new  birth.2 

With  regard  to  the  partaking  of  sacred  food,  the  evidence 
is  in  some  respects  more  abundant.  Even  in  the  mysteries  of 
Eleusis,  a  special  significance  seems  to  have  been  attributed 
to  the  drinking  of  the  "kykeon" ;  and  the  initiates  into  the 
Phrygian  mysteries  are  reported  by  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(similarly  Firmicus  Maternus)  to  have  used  a  formula  includ- 
ing the  words,  "I  ate  from  the  drum,  I  drank  from  the  cymbal." 
So  far  as  the  form  of  the  act  is  concerned,  the  similarity  to  the 
Christian  Eucharist  is  here  certainly  not  great;  there  was 
eating  and  drinking  in  both  cases,  but  everything  else,  so  far 
as  can  be  seen,  was  different.  In  the  mysteries  of  Mithras 
the  similarity  of  form  seems  to  have  been  greater;  the  initiates 
partook  of  bread  and  of  a  cup  in  a  way  which  Justin  Martyr 
regarded  as  a  demoniac  imitation  of  the  Christian  sacrament. 
According  to  Cumont,  moreover,  the  Mithraic  practice  was 
clearly  sacramental;  the  initiates  expected  from  their  sacred 

1  Moulton  and  Milligan,  The  Vocabulary  of  the  Greek  Testament,  s.  v. 
pa-n-Tlfa,  Part  ii,  [1915],  p.  102.  Similarly  Sethe,  "Sarapis,"  in  Abhand- 
lungen  der  koniglichen  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Gottingen, 
philologisch-historische  Klasse,  Neue  Folge,  xiv,  Nro.  5,  1913,  p.  51. 

'Tertullian,  de  bapt.  5  (ed.  Reifferscheid  et  Wissowa,  1890),  it  must  be 
admitted,  connects  baptism  in  heathen  religion  with  regeneration,  and 
mentions  the  part  which  sacramental  washings  had  in  the  mysteries  of  Isis 
and  of  Mithras,  and  in  Eleusinian  rites.  Despite  the  post-Pauline  date 
of  this  testimony,  the  passage  is  certainly  interesting.  Compare  Kennedy, 
op.  cit.,  p.  229. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

banquet  a  supernatural  effect.1  But  it  will  be  remembered 
that  considerations  of  date  render  an  influence  of  Mithras  upon 
Paul  exceedingly  improbable.  And  the  significance  of  the  eat- 
ing and  drinking  in  connection  with  other  mysteries  is  obscure. 
Apparently  these  acts  did  not  form  a  part  of  the  mysteries 
proper,  but  were  only  a  preparation  for  them. 

In  a  very  savage  form  of  religion  there  appears  the  no- 
tion that  men  could  partake  of  the  divine  nature  by  actually 
eating  the  god.  For  example,  in  the  worship  of  Dionysus,  the 
worshipers  in  the  height  of  religious  frenzy  tore  in  pieces  the 
sacred  bull  and  devoured  the  raw  flesh.  Here  the  bull  appar- 
ently represented  the  god  himself.  This  savage  practice  stands 
in  external  parallel  with  certain  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, not  only  with  the  references  in  John  vi  to  the  eating 
of  the  flesh  and  drinking  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  but  also 
(though  less  clearly)  with  the  Pauline  teaching  about  the  Lord's 
Supper.  In  1  Cor.  x.  16  Paul  speaks  of  the  "cup  of  blessing" 
as  being  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  the  bread 
as  being  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Have  we  not  here 
a  sublimated  form  of  the  pagan  notion  of  eating  the  god  ?  The 
supposition  might  seem  to  be  strengthened  by  the  parallel 
which  Paul  draws  a  few  verses  further  on  between  the  cup  of 
the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  demons,  and  between  the  table  of  the 
Lord  and  the  table  of  demons  (verse  21),  the  demons,  it  is 
said,  being  regarded  by  Paul  as  identical  with  the  heathen 
gods. 

But  the  trouble  is  that  the  savage  notion  of  eating  the 
god  does  not  seem  to  have  survived  in  the  Hellenistic  mystery 
religions.  At  this  point,  therefore,  the  student  of  comparative 
religion  is  faced  with  a  difficulty  exactly  opposite  to  that 
which  appears  in  most  of  the  parallels  which  have  been  set  up 
between  the  teaching  of  Paul  and  pagan  religion.  In  most 
cases  the  difficulty  is  that  the  pagan  parallels  are  too  late; 
here,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  too  early.  If  Paul  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  pagan  notion  of  eating  the  god,  he  must  have 
deserted  the  religious  practice  which  prevailed  in  his  own  day 
in  order  to  have  recourse  to  a  savage  custom  which  had  long 
since  been  abandoned.  The  suggestion  does  not  seem  to  be  very 

1Cumont,  Textes  et  monuments  figurfo  relatifs  aux  mystkres  de  Mithra, 
i,  1899,  p.  321.  See  Heitmiiller,  Tcwfe  und  Abendmahl  bei  f>aulu*,  1903, 
p.  46,  Anm.  3. 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  283 

natural.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  even  where  Christianity 
is  dependent  upon  Hellenistic  religion  it  represents  a  spirit- 
ualizing modification  of  the  pagan  practice.  But  at  this  point 
it  would  have  to  be  supposed  that  the  Christian  modification 
proceeded  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction;  far  from  mark- 
ing a  greater  spiritualization  of  pagan  practice,  it  meant  a 
return  to  a  savage  stage  of  religion  which  even  paganism  had 
abandoned. 

Efforts  are  sometimes  made  to  overcome  this  objection. 
"We  observe  in  the  history  of  religion,"  says  Heitmiiller,  "that 
tendencies  connected  with  low  stages  of  religious  develop- 
ment, which  in  the  higher  stages  were  quiescent  or  extinct,  sud- 
denly spring  up  again — of  course  in  a  modified  form  adapted 
to  the  changed  circumstances."  1  Such  general  observations, 
even  if  they  are  based  upon  fact,  will  hardly  serve  to  render 
the  present  hypothesis  any  more  plausible.  Dependence  of  the 
Pauline  teaching  about  the  Lord's  Supper  upon  the  savage  no- 
tion of  eating  the  god,  when  even  paganism  had  come  to  abandon 
that  notion,  will  always  seem  very  unnatural. 

Certainly  the  hypothesis  is  not  supported  by  the  parallel 
which  Paul  draws  in  1  Cor.  x.  21  between  the  table  of  the  Lord 
and  the  table  of  demons.  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  heathen 
had  fellowship  with  their  gods  by  partaking  of  them  in  a  meal ; 
the  fellowship  with  those  gods  (verse  20)  could  be  conceived 
of  in  other  ways.  For  example,  the  cult  god  may  have  been 
conceived  of  in  the  sacrificial  meals  as  the  host  at  a  feast. 
In  point  of  fact,  such  an  idea  was  no  doubt  widely  prevalent. 
It  is  attributed  to  the  Phrygian  mysteries,  for  example,  by 
Hepding,  who  supposes  that  the  eating  from  the  drum  and 
drinking  from  the  cymbal  meant  the  entrance  of  the  initiate 
into  the  circle  formed  by  the  table-companions  of  the  god.2 
At  any  rate,  the  savage  notion  of  eating  the  god  is  not  clearly 
attested  for  the  Hellenistic  period,  and  certainly  dependence 
of  Paul  upon  such  a  notion  is  unlikely  in  the  extreme. 

No  close  parallel,  then,  can  be  established  between  the  Chris- 
tian sacraments  and  the  practices  of  the  pagan  cults.  But 
the  very  fact  that  the  Pauline  churches  had  sacraments  at  all 
— irrespective  of  the  form  of  the  particular  sacraments — may 
conceivably  be  made  a  ground  for  connecting  Paulinism  with 

1Heitmuller,  Taufe  und  Abendmahl  bei  Paulus,  1903,  p.  47. 
a  Hepding,  Attis,  1903,  pp.  186f. 


284  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  Hellenistic  religions.  The  argument  depends  upon  one 
particular  view  of  the  Pauline  sacraments ;  it  depends  upon  the 
view  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were  conceived  of  as 
conveying  blessing  not  in  virtue  of  the  disposition  of  soul  with 
which  they  were  administered  or  received  but  in  virtue  of  the 
sacramental  acts  themselves.  In  other  words  (to  use  tradi- 
tional language),  the  argument  depends  upon  the  view  that 
the  Pauline  sacraments  conveyed  their  blessing  not  ex  opere 
operantis  but  ex  opere  operate.  In  the  Pauline  churches,  it 
is  argued,  the  beginning  of  the  new  life  and  the  communion 
with  the  cult  god  were  connected  with  certain  ceremonial  acts. 
So  it  was  also  in  the  mystery  religions.  Therefore  Paulinism 
is  to  be  understood  in  connection  with  the  mysteries. 

But  the  interpretation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  upon  which 
this  hypothesis  is  based  is  fraught  with  serious  difficulty.  Did 
Paul  really  conceive  of  the  sacraments  as  conveying  their  bless- 
ing ex  opere  operate?  The  general  character  of  the  Epistles 
certainly  points  in  an  opposite  direction.  An  unprejudiced 
reader  of  the  Epistles  as  a  whole  certainly  receives  the  im- 
pression that  the  writer  laid  extraordinarily  little  stress  upon 
forms  and  ceremonies.  Salvation  according  to  Paul  was  de- 
pendent solely  upon  faith,  the  simple  acceptance  of  the  offer 
contained  in  the  message  of  the  Cross.  Any  connection  of  such 
a  religion  with  external  forms  seems  even  to  be  excluded  ex- 
pressly by  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  A  dispensation  of 
forms  and  ceremonies,  according  to  that  Epistle,  belongs  to  the 
period  of  childish  bondage  from  which  Christ  has  set  men  free. 

Yet  such  a  writer,  it  is  maintained,  actually  taught  that 
the  mere  act  of  baptism  conveyed  the  blessing  of  a  new  life 
and  the  mere  partaking  of  food  and  drink  conveyed  the  blessing 
of  communion  with  the  risen  Christ.  The  supposition  seems  at 
first  sight  to  be  preposterous.  If  it  is  to  be  established,  it  can 
only  be  on  the  basis  of  the  clearest  kind  of  evidence. 

The  evidence,  it  should  be  noted  at  the  start,  is  at  any 
rate  decidedly  limited  in  extent.  It  is  only  in  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  that  Paul  mentions  the  Lord's  Supper 
at  all,  and  it  is  only  in  Rom.  vi  and  Col.  ii.  12  that  baptism  is 
connected  with  the  death  and  resurrection  which  the  believer 
is  said  to  have  shared  with  Christ.  The  limited  extent  of  the 
evidence  may  in  itself  be  significant.  If  Paul  held  the  high 
sacramentarian  view  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  seems 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  285 

a  little  strange  that  he  should  have  laid  so  little  stress  upon  the 
sacraments.  High  sacramentarians  of  all  ages  have  preserved 
a  very  different  proportion.  It  seems  still  more  strange,  per- 
haps, that  Paul  should  have  said  that  Christ  sent  him  not  to 
baptize  but  to  preach  the  gospel  (1  Cor.  i.  17).  On  the  ex 
opere  operato  view  of  baptism,  baptism  was  the  highest  possible 
function.  Could  an  apostle  who  held  that  view  have  attributed 
relatively  so  little  importance  to  it?  In  order  to  appreciate 
how  much  less  importance  is  attributed  in  the  Epistles  to  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  than  to  certain  other  elements  in 
Paul's  teaching,  it  is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  references 
to  the  sacraments  with  the  references  to  faith.  The  fact  is 
perfectly  plain.  When  Paul  speaks,  in  the  large,  about  the 
way  of  salvation,  it  never  seems  to  occur  to  him  to  mention  the 
sacraments ;  what  he  does  think  of  is  the  message  of  the  gospel 
and  the  simple  acceptance  of  it  through  faith. 

These  facts  are  sometimes  admitted  even  by  those  who 
attribute  a  high  sacramentarian  view  of  the  sacraments  to 
Paul;  Paulinism  when  taken  as  a  whole,  it  is  admitted,  is  cer- 
tainly not  a  sacramentarian  religion.  What  has  happened, 
then,  it  is  supposed,  is  that  Paul  has  retained  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  sacraments  an  element  derived  from  a  lower  type  of  religion, 
an  unassimilated  remnant  of  the  type  of  religion  which  is  rep- 
resented by  the  mystery  cults.  Thus  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
the  sacraments  is  thought  to  introduce  a  glaring  contradiction 
into  the  thought  and  life  of  Paul. 

Can  such  a  glaring  contradiction  be  attributed  to  Paul? 
It  could  probably  be  attributed  to  Hermes  Trismegistus.  But 
can  it  be  attributed  to  Paul?  The  writer  of  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles was  no  mere  compiler,  receiving  unassimilated  materials 
from  many  sources.  He  was  a  person  of  highly  marked  char- 
acteristics. And  he  was  a  person  of  commanding  intellect. 
Could  such  a  writer  have  introduced  a  glaring  contradiction 
into  the  very  center  of  his  teaching?  Could  a  writer  who  in  the 
great  mass  of  his  writing  is  triumphantly  and  even  polemically 
anti-sacramentarian  have  maintained  all  along  a  crassly 
sacramentarian  view  of  the  way  in  which  religious  blessing  was 
to  be  obtained? 

An  affirmative  answer  to  these  questions  could  be  rendered 
only  on  the  basis  of  positive  evidence  of  the  most  unequivocal 
kind.  And  such  positive  evidence  is  not  forthcoming.  The 


286  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

most  that  can  by  any  possibility  be  said  for  the  strictly  sacra- 
mentarian  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi  is  that  it  is  possible. 
It  might  conceivably  be  adopted  if  Rom.  vi  stood  alone.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact  Rom.  vi  does  not  stand  alone ;  it  stands  in 
the  midst  of  a  considerable  body  of  Pauline  Epistles.  And  it 
must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  what  Paul  says  elsewhere. 
If  Rom.  vi  stood  absolutely  alone,  Paul  might  conceivably  be 
thought  to  mean  that  the  act  of  baptism  in  itself  involves  a 
dying  with  Christ  and  a  rising  with  Him  to  a  new  life.  But 
the  whole  character  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  absolutely  pre- 
cludes such  an  interpretation.  And  another  interpretation  does 
full  justice  to  the  words  as  they  stand.  That  interpretation  is 
the  obvious  one  wrhich  makes  the  act  of  baptism  an  outward 
sign  of  an  inner  experience.  "We  were  buried  with  him,"  says 
Paul,  "through  baptism  unto  death."  These  words  are  pressed 
by  the  modern  school  of  comparative  religion  very  much  as 
Luther  at  the  Marburg  Conference  pressed  the  Latin  words  of 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Luther  wrote  on  the  table, 
"This  is  my  body"  ("hoc  est  corpus  meum"),  and  would  not 
hear  of  anything  but  the  most  literal  interpretation  of  the 
words.  So  the  modern  school  of  comparative  religion  presses 
the  words  "through  baptism"  in  Rom.  vi.  4.  "We  were  buried 
with  him  through  baptism,"  says  Paul.  Therefore,  it  is  said, 
since  it  was  through  baptism,  it  was  not  through  faith,  or 
through  any  inner  disposition  of  the  soul;  therefore  the  sacra- 
mentarian  interpretation  is  correct.  But  if  Luther's  over- 
literalness,  fraught  with  such  disastrous  consequences  for  the 
Church,  is  deserted  by  most  advocates  of  the  grammatico-his- 
torical  method  of  exegesic,  should  an  equally  bald  literalness 
be  insisted  upon  in  connection  with  Rom.  vi.  4? 

Interpreted  in  connection  with  the  whole  trend  of  the 
Epistles,  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans  contains  an  appeal  to 
the  outward  sign  of  an  inner  experience.  It  is  perfectly  nat- 
ural that  Paul  should  here  appeal  to  the  outward  sign  rather 
than  to  the  inner  experience.  Paul  desires  to  strengthen  in  his 
readers  the  conviction  that  the  life  which  they  are  leading  as 
Christians  is  a  new  life  in  which  sin  can  have  no  place.  Un- 
questionably he  might  have  appealed  to  the  faith  which  had 
been  the  means  by  which  the  new  life  had  been  begun.  But  faith 
is  not  something  that  can  be  seen.  Baptism,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  a  plain  and  obvious  fact.  To  use  a  modern  term,  it  "visual- 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION  287 

ized"  faith.  And  it  is  just  the  visualizing  of  faith  that  Paul 
here  desires.  When  the  Roman  Christians  were  baptized,  they 
were  convinced  that  the  act  meant  a  dying  with  Christ  and  a 
rising  with  Him;  it  meant  the  beginning  of  their  Christian 
life.  It  was  a  solemn  and  a  definite  act.  It  was  something 
that  could  be  seen  as  well  as  felt.  Conceivably,  indeed,  the 
act  in  itself  might  have  been  unaccompanied  by  faith.  But  in 
the  early  Church  such  cases  were  no  doubt  extremely  rare. 
They  could  therefore  be  left  out  of  account  by  Paul.  Paul 
assumes — and  no  doubt  he  is  correct — that,  whatever  might 
conceivably  have  been  the  case,  as  a  matter  of  fact  when  any 
one  of  the  Roman  Christians  was  baptized  he  died  and  rose 
again  with  Christ.  But  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  dying  and 
rising  again  was  produced  by  the  external  act  otherwise  than 
as  that  act  was  an  expression  of  faith.  Here,  however,  it  is  to 
the  external  act  that  he  appeals,  because  it  is  the  external  act 
which  can  be  seen  and  can  be  realized.  It  can  only  be  because 
the  newness  of  the  Christian  life  is  not  realized  that  Christians 
can  think  of  it  as  permitting  a  continuance  in  sin.  What 
enables  it  to  be  realized  is  that  which  can  actually  be  seen, 
namely,  the  external  and  obvious  fact  of  baptism.  In  other 
words,  baptism  is  here  made  to  discharge  in  typical  fashion 
its  divinely  appointed  function  as  an  external  sign  of  an  inner 
experience,  and  an  external  sign  which  is  made  the  vehicle  of 
special  blessing. 

A  similar  interpretation  may  be  applied  to  all  the  refer- 
ences to  the  sacraments  which  occur  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
What  sometimes  produces  the  impression  of  an  ex  opere  operate 
conception  of  the  sacraments  is  that  Paul  does  not  take  into 
account  the  possibility  that  the  sacraments  might  be  unac- 
companied by  faith.  So  in  Gal.  iii.  27  he  says,  "All  ye  who  were 
baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ."  These  words  if  taken 
alone  might  mean  that  every  man,  whatever  the  condition  of  his 
soul,  who  went  through  the  external  form  of  baptism  had  put 
on  Christ.  But  of  course  as  a  matter  of  fact  Paul  means  noth- 
ing of  the  kind.  What  he  does  mean  is  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Galatians,  since  that  baptism  was  accompanied  by  faith 
(Gal.  iii.  2),  meant  in  that  concrete  case  the  putting  on  of 
Christ.  Here  again  there  is  an  appeal,  in  the  presence  of 
those  who  were  in  danger  of  forgetting  spiritual  facts,  to  the 
external  sign  which  no  one  could  forget. 


288  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

This  interpretation  cannot  be  invalidated  by  the  passages 
which  have  been  appealed  to  as  supporting  a  crassly  ex  opere 
operate  conception  of  the  sacraments.  In  1  Cor.  xi.  30,  for 
example,  Paul  says  that  because  of  an  unworthy  partaking  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  many  of  the  Corinthians  were  ill  and  many 
had  died.  But  these  words  need  not  necessarily  mean  that  the 
bread  and  wine,  because  of  a  dangerous  magical  virtue  that  was 
in  them,  had  inflicted  harm  upon  those  who  had  not  used  them 
aright.  They  may  mean  at  least  equally  well  that  the  physical 
ills  of  the  Corinthians  were  a  chastisement  which  had  been  in- 
flicted by  God.  As  for  1  Cor.  xv.  29  (baptism  in  behalf  of 
the  dead),  it  can  be  said  at  least  that  that  verse  is  isolated 
and  exceedingly  obscure,  and  that  it  is  bad  historical  method 
to  allow  what  is  obscure  to  color  the  interpretation  of  what 
is  plain.  Many  interpretations  of  the  verse  have  been  pro- 
posed. And  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  Paul  lent  his  own 
support  to  the  custom  to  which  reference  is  here  made. 

Thus  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  Paulinism  was  like 
the  pagan  mysteries  even  in  the  general  sense  that  both  Paul- 
inism and  the  mysteries  connected  salvation  with  external  acts. 
The  acts  themselves  were  different;  and  the  meaning  of  the 
acts  was  still  more  diverse.  An  element  of  truth  does  indeed 
underlie  the  sacramentarian  interpretation  of  Paul.  The  ele- 
ment of  truth  consists  in  the  protest  which  is  here  raised  against 
the  interpretation  which  has  sometimes  been  favored  by  "lib- 
eral" scholars.  According  to  this  liberal  interpretation,  when 
Paul  speaks  of  dying  and  rising  with  Christ  he  is  referring 
to  a  purely  ethical  fact;  when  he  says  that  he  has  died  to 
the  Law,  he  means  that  he  has  made  a  radical  break  with  an 
external,  legalistic  type  of  religion ;  when  he  says  that  it  is 
no  longer  he  that  lives  but  Christ  that  lives  in  him,  he  means 
that  he  has  made  Christ  his  supreme  guide  and  example ;  when 
he  says  that  through  the  Cross  of  Christ  he  has  been  crucified 
to  the  world,  he  means  that  the  Cross  has  led  him  to  renounce 
all  worldliness  of  purpose.  Such  interpretation  is  exceed- 
ingly common.  But  it  is  radically  false.  It  is  false  because 
it  does  away  with  the  supernaturalism  of  Paul's  teaching. 
There  could  be  no  greater  mistake  than  that  of  making  salva- 
tion according  to  Paul  an  affair  of  the  human  will.  On  the 
contrary,  the  very  essence  of  Pauline  teaching  is  supernat- 


REDEMPTION  IN  PAGAN  RELIGION          289 

uralism.  Salvation,  according  to  Paul,  is  based  upon  a  super- 
natural act  of  God — the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  And 
equally  supernatural  is  the  application  of  salvation  to  the 
individual.  The  new  creation  which  stands  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  life  is  according  to  Paul  just  as  little  a  product 
of  natural  forces,  and  just  as  little  a  product  of  the  human 
will,  as  the  first  creation  was.  The  modern  school  of  com- 
parative religion  is  entirely  correct  in  insisting  upon  the  thor- 
oughgoing supernaturalism  of  the  Pauline  gospel.  Paulinism 
is  a  redemptive  religion  in  the  most  thoroughgoing  sense  of 
the  word ;  it  finds  salvation,  not  in  a  decision  of  the  human 
will,  but  in  an  act  of  God. 

But  the  error  comes  in  confusing  supernaturalism  with 
sacramentalism.  Paul's  conception  of  salvation  is  supernat- 
ural, but  it  is  not  external.  It  is  indeed  just  as  supernatural  as 
if  it  were  external.  The  beginning  of  a  man's  Christian  life, 
according  to  Paul,  is  just  as  little  a  product  of  his  own  moral 
forces,  just  as  little  a  product  of  any  mere  moral  influence 
brought  to  bear  upon  him,  as  it  would  be  if  it  were  produced 
by  the  water  into  which  he  was  dipped  or  the  bread  and  wine 
of  which  he  partakes.  Conceivably  God  might  have  chosen  to 
use  such  means.  If  He  had  done  so,  His  action  would  have 
been  not  one  whit  more  supernatural  than  it  actually  is.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  He  has  chosen,  in  His  mysterious  wisdom, 
to  use  the  means  of  faith.  Such  is  the  teaching  of  Paul. 
It  is  highly  distasteful  to  the  modern  liberal  Church.  But 
even  if  it  is  to  be  rejected  it  should  at  least  be  recognized  as 
Pauline. 

Thus  the  interpretation  of  the  sacraments  which  is  pro- 
posed by  the  modern  school  of  comparative  religion — and  in- 
deed the  whole  modern  radical  treatment  of  Paulinism  as  a 
thoroughgoing  religion  of  redemption — marks  a  reaction 
against  the  modernizing  exegesis  which  was  practised  by  the 
liberal  school.  But  the  reaction  has  at  any  rate  gone  too  far. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  the  newer  exegesis  is  any  more  objective 
than  the  liberal  exegesis  which  it  endeavors  to  replace.  The 
liberal  scholars  were  concerned  to  keep  Paul  as  near  as  possible 
to  their  modern  naturalistic  principles,  in  order  to  continue 
to  use  him  for  the  edificatipn  of  the  Church ;  the  radical  scholars 
of  the  school  of  comparative  religion  are  concerned  to  keep 


290  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

him  as  far  away  as  possible  from  modern  naturalistic  principles 
in  order  to  bring  him  into  connection  with  the  crass  external- 
ism  of  the  mystery  religions.  Neither  group  has  attained  the 
whole  truth.  The  Pauline  conception  of  salvation  is  just  as 
spiritual  as  it  is  thought  to  be  by  the  liberal  scholars;  but 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  supernatural  as  it  is  repre- 
sented as  being  by  Reitzenstein  and  Bousset. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE  LORDSHIP   OF   JESUS 

Two  of  the  contentions  of  the  modern  school  of  compara- 
tive religion  have  so  far  been  examined.  It  has  been  shown 
that  neither  the  group  of  Pauline  conceptions  which  centers 
around  the  new  birth  (or,  as  Paul  calls  it,  the  new  creation) 
nor  the  Pauline  teaching  about  the  sacraments  was  derived  from 
the  mystery  religions.  The  third  element  of  Paulinism  which 
is  thought  to  have  come  from  pagan  religion  is  found  in  the 
Pauline  conception  of  Christ  and  of  the  work  of  Christ  in 
redemption.  This  contention  is  connected  especially  with  the 
name  of  Bousset,1  who  is,  however,  supported  in  essentials 
by  a  considerable  number  of  contemporary  scholars.  The 
hypothesis  of  Bousset  is  intimately  connected  with  those  hypo- 
theses which  have  already  been  examined.  A  complete  treat- 
ment of  it  at  this  point  would  therefore  involve  repetition.  But 
it  may  here  be  set  forth  at  least  in  a  somewhat  systematic, 
though  still  in  a  merely  summary,  way. 

According  to  Bousset,  the  primitive  Christian  community 
in  Jerusalem  regarded  Jesus  chiefly  as  the  Son  of  Man — the 
mysterious  person,  mentioned  in  the  Jewish  apocalypses,  who 
was  finally  to  come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  and  be  the  in- 
strument in  ushering  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Bousset  is  doubt- 
ful whether  or  no  the  title  Son  of  Man  was  ever  assumed  by 
Jesus  Himself,  and  regards  the  settlement  of  this  question  as 
lying  beyond  the  scope  of  his  book.  But  the  tendency  of  the 
book  is  decidedly  toward  a  radical  denial  of  the  Messianic 
consciousness  of  Jesus.  And  at  this  point  the  cautious  inves- 
tigator, even  if  his  presuppositions  are  the  same  as  Bousset's 
own,  may  well  be  inclined  to  take  alarm.  The  method  which 
is  here  pursued  seems  to  be  leading  logically  to  the  elimination 
from  the  pages  of  history  of  the  whole  Gospel  picture  of  Jesus, 
1Kyrios  Christos,  1913;  Jesus  der  Herr,  1916. 

293 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

or  rather  to  the  use  of  that  picture  in  the  reconstruction  not 
of  the  historical  Jesus,  but  only  of  the  belief  of  the  Christian 
community.  Of  course  Bousset  does  not  push  matters  to  such 
lengths ;  he  is  by  no  means  inclined  to  follow  W.  B.  Smith  and 
Drews  in  denying  the  historicity  of  Jesus.  But  the  reader  of 
the  first  part  of  the  "Kyrios  Christos"  has  an  uneasy  feeling 
that  if  any  of  the  Gospel  picture  still  escapes  the  keen  edge 
of  Bousset's  criticism,  it  is  only  by  accident.  Many  of  those 
incidents  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  many  of  those  elements  in 
the  Gospel  teaching,  which  have  been  considered  most  char- 
acteristic of  the  historical  Jesus  have  here  been  removed.  There 
seems  to  be  no  particular  reason  why  the  rest  should  remain; 
for  the  elements  that  remain  are  quite  similar  to  the  elements 
that  have  been  made  to  go.  No  mark  of  authenticity  seems 
to  be  proof  against  the  skepticism  of  this  latest  historian. 
Bousset  thus  illustrates  the  difficulty  of  separating  the  natural 
from  the  supernatural  in  the  Gospel  picture  of  Jesus.  When 
the  process  of  separation  begins,  it  is  difficult  to  bring  it  to  a 
halt ;  the  wheat  is  in  danger  of  being  rooted  up  with  the  tares. 
Bousset  has  dealt  a  severe  blow  to  the  prestige  of  the  liberal 
reconstruction  of  Jesus.  By  the  recent  developments  in  his 
thinking  he  has  shown  by  his  own  example  that  the  liberal 
reconstruction  is  in  a  state  of  unstable  equilibrium.  It  is  al- 
ways in  danger  of  giving  way  to  radical  denial  either  of  the 
historicity  of  Jesus  or  of  the  historicity  of  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness. Such  radicalism  is  faced  by  insuperable  difficulties. 
Perhaps,  then,  there  is  something  wrong  with  the  critical 
method  from  which  the  radicalism  always  tends  to  result. 

But  it  is  necessary  now  to  examine  a  little  more  closely 
the  belief  of  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church.  That  belief, 
Bousset  maintains,  did  not  involve  any  conception  of  Jesus 
as  "Lord."  The  title  "Lord,"  he  says,  was  not  applied  to 
Jesus  on  Palestinian  ground,  and  Jesus  was  not  regarded  by 
the  early  Jerusalem  Church  as  the  object  of  faith.  The  piety 
of  the  primitive  Church  was  thus  exclusively  eschatological ; 
Jesus  was  expected  to  return  in  glory  from  heaven,  but  mean- 
while He  was  regarded  as  separated  from  His  disciples.  He 
was  the  heavenly  "Son  of  Man,"  to  come  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  not  the  "Lord"  now  present  in  the  Church. 

These  momentous  assertions,  which  lie  at  the  very  basis  of 
Bousset's  hypothesis,  are  summed  up  in  the  elimination  from 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  295 

Jerusalem  Christianity  of  the  title  "Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus. 
This  elimination  of  the  title  "Lord"  of  course  involves  a  rejec- 
tion of  the  testimony  of  Acts.  The  Book  of  Acts  contains 
the  only  extant  narrative  of  the  early  progress  of  Jerusalem 
Christianity.  And  so  far  as  the  designations  of  Christ  are 
concerned,  the  early  chapters  of  the  book  have  usually  been 
thought  to  produce  an  impression  of  special  antiquity  and 
authenticity.  These  chapters  apply  the  title  "Lord"  to  Jesus ; 
the  words  in  Acts  ii.  36,  "God  has  made  him  both  Lord  and 
Christ,"  have  often  been  regarded  as  especially  significant. 
But  to  Bousset,  in  view  of  his  opinion  about  the  Book  of  Acts 
as  a  whole,  the  elimination  of  this  testimony  causes  no  difficulty. 

But  how  does  Bousset  know  that  the  primitive  Jerusalem 
Church  did  not  apply  the  term  "Lord"  to  Jesus?  The  prin- 
cipal argument  is  derived  from  an  examination  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  The  title  "Lord,"  as  applied  to  Jesus,  Bousset 
believes,  appears  only  "on  the  margin"  (as  it  were)  of  the 
Gospel  tradition ;  it  does  not  appear  as  one  of  the  primitive 
elements  in  the  tradition.  But  since  it  does  not  appear  firmly 
fixed  in  the  Gospel  tradition,  it  could  not  have  formed  a  part 
of  Christian  belief  in  the  community  where  the  Gospel  tradition 
was  formed.  The  community  where  the  Gospel  tradition  was 
formed  was  the  Jerusalem  Church.  Therefore  the  title  Lord 
as  applied  to  Jesus  did  not  form  part  of  the  belief  of  the 
Jerusalem  Church.  Such,  in  bare  outline,  is  the  argument  of 
Bousset. 

An  examination  of  that  argument  in  detail  would  far  trans- 
cend the  limits  of  the  present  discussion.1  But  certain  ob- 
vious remarks  can  be  made. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  perfectly  clear  that  the  title 
Lord  appears  only  in  secondary  elements  of  the  Gospel  tradi- 
tion. Certainly  it  must  be  granted  to  Bousset  that  the  in- 
stances where  the  word  "Lord"  appears  in  the  vocative  case 
do  not  necessarily  involve  any  recognition  of  the  lofty  title 
"Lord"  as  belonging  to  Jesus ;  for  the  word  could  be  used  in 
direct  address  in  the  presence  of  any  person  to  whom  respect 
was  to  be  paid.  Nevertheless,  in  some  of  the  passages  the  word 
does  seem  to  be  more  than  a  mere  reverential  form  of  address. 

'See  Vos,  "The  Kyrios  Christos  Controversy,"  in  The  Princeton  Theo- 
logical Review,  xv,  1917,  pp.  21-89.  See  also  the  review  of  Bousset's  "Kyrios 
Christos"  by  the  same  author,  Ibid.,  xii,  1914,  pp.  636-645. 


296  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Bousset  himself  admits  that  such  is  the  case  at  least  in  Matt, 
vii.  21,  "Not  every  one  who  says  unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  his  opinion  that  this 
passage  is  secondary  as  compared  with  Lk.  vi.  46  is  insuffi- 
ciently grounded.  The  cases  in  the  Gospels  where  the  title  is 
used  absolutely  are  not  very  numerous,  and  they  occur  chiefly 
in  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  But  the  estimate  of  them  as  secondary 
depends  of  course  upon  certain  critical  conclusions  about  the 
relationships  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  And  it  is  doubtful 
whether  Bousset  has  quite  succeeded  in  refuting  the  argument 
which  can  be  derived  from  Mk.  xii.  35-37  (and  parallels),  the 
passage  about  David's  son  and  David's  Lord.  Bousset  him- 
self uses  this  passage  as  an  important  testimony  to  the  belief 
of  the  early  Jerusalem  Church,  though  he  does  not  regard  it 
as  representing  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus.  Yet  here  Jesus 
is  made  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  David  called  the 
Messiah  "Lord."  If  this  passage  represents  the  belief  about 
Jesus  of  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church,  what  stronger  testi- 
mony could  there  be  to  the  use  in  that  church  of  the  title 
"Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus?  Bousset  avoids  the  difficulty  by 
calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  passage 
(Ps.  ex.  1)  is  here  quoted  not  according  to  the  original  but 
according  to  the  Septuagint  translation.  In  the  original  He- 
brew, says  Bousset,  there  was  a  distinction  between  the  word 
"Lord"  as  applied  to  God  and  the  word  "Lord"  as  applied 
to  the  other  person  who  is  referred  to ;  the  Hebrew  has,  "Jahwe 
said  to  my  Lord  (adoni)."  Thus  that  second  person,  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrew,  can  be  regarded  as  a  human  individual, 
and  all  that  is  meant  by  the  term  "Lord"  as  used  of  him  by 
David  is  that  he  stood  higher  than  David.  Bousset  seems 
to  think  that  this  explanation  destroys  the  value  of  the  passage 
as  a  witness  to  the  use  in  the  Jerusalem  Church  of  the  religious 
term  "Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus.  But  such  is  by  no  means 
the  case.  For  if  the  Messiah  (Jesus)  was  higher  than  David, 
so  that  David  could  call  Him  Lord,  then  Jesus  must  have  oc- 
cupied some  very  lofty  position.  If  David  could  call  Him 
Lord,  would  the  title  be  refused  to  Him  by  humble  members 
of  the  Jerusalem  Church?  On  Bousset's  interpretation  the 
passage  may  not  directly  attest  the  use  of  the  title  by  the 
Jerusalem  Church,  but  it  does  seem  to  presuppose  it.  It  may 
also  be  questioned  whether  Bousset  has  succeeded  in  getting 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  297 

rid  of  Mk.  xi.  3,  as  a  witness  to  the  title  Ljrd  as  applied  to 
Jesus  in  the  Jerusalem  Church. 

But  does  the  infrequency  of  the  use  of  the  title  "Lord" 
in  the  Gospels  necessarily  indicate  that  that  title  was  not 
prevalent  in  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church?  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  title  "Christ,"  which  was  of  course  applied 
to  Jesus  by  the  Jerusalem  Church,  is  also  very  infrequent  in 
the  Gospels.  Why  should  the  infrequency  in  the  Gospel  use 
of  one  title  be  regarded  as  an  argument  against  the  use  of  that 
title  in  the  Jerusalem  Church,  when  in  the  case  of  the  other 
title  no  such  argument  can  possibly  be  set  up?  Bousset  is 
ready  with  his  answer.  But  the  answer  is  entirely  inadequate. 
The  title  "Christ,"  Bousset  says,  was  an  eschatological  title; 
it  referred  to  a  dignity  which  in  the  belief  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  Jesus  was  not  to  attain  until  His  coming  in  glory. 
Therefore  it  could  not  readily  be  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  ac- 
counts of  His  earthly  ministry.  Hence  in  the  case  of  that 
title  there  was  a  special  obstacle  which  hindered  the  intrusion 
of  the  title  into  the  Gospel  tradition.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
title  "Lord,"  there  was  no  such  obstacle;  therefore  the  non- 
intrusion of  that  title  into  the  Gospel  tradition  requires  a 
special  explanation;  and  the  only  possible  explanation  is  that 
the  title  was  not  used  in  the  Jerusalem  Church. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  crowd  into  brief  compass  so  many 
highly  debatable  assertions  as  are  crowded  together  in  this 
argument.  Was  the  title  "Christ"  a  purely  eschatological 
title?  It  is  not  a  purely  eschatological  title  in  Paul.  It  is 
not  really  a  purely  eschatological  title  anywhere  in  the  New 
Testament.  At  any  rate,  Bousset  is  here  adopting  a  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  which  is  at  best  problematical 
and  is  rejected  by  men  of  the  most  widely  divergent  points  of 
view.  And  did  the  title  "Lord"  designate  Jesus  especially  as 
the  present  Lord  of  the  Church,  rather  than  as  the  one  who 
was  finally  to  usher  in  the  Kingdom?  Was  Jesus  in  the  belief 
of  the  early  Church  the  "coming"  Christ  any  more  than  He 
was  the  "coming"  Lord;  and  was  He  the  present  Lord  any 
more  than  He  was  the  present  Christ?  These  questions  cannot 
be  answered  with  absolute  certainty.  At  any  rate,  even  if 
Bousset  can  point  to  a  larger  proportion  of  eschatological 
interest  in  the  one  title  than  that  which  appears  in  the  other, 
yet  such  a  distinction  is  relative  only.  And  it  still  remains 


298  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

true  that  if  the  infrequency  of  the  title  "Christ"  in  the  Gospels 
does  not  indicate  the  non-existence  of  that  title  in  the  Jerusa- 
lem Church,  the  infrequency  of  the  title  "Lord"  in  the  Gospels 
is  not  any  more  significant. 

With  regard  to  the  title  "Son  of  Man,"  Bousset  makes  a 
remark  somewhat  similar  to  that  which  he  makes  about  the 
title  "Christ."  The  title  "Son  of  Man,"  he  says,  was  eschato- 
logical;  therefore  it  could  not  be  introduced  into  the  narrative 
part  of  the  Gospels.  But  it  will  always  remain  one  of  the 
paradoxes  of  Bousset's  theory  that  according  to  Bousset  the 
title  "Son  of  Man,"  which  (except  in  Acts  vii.  56)  appears 
in  the  tradition  only  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  never  as 
the  title  used  when  men  spoke  about  Jesus,  should  be  supposed 
to  have  been  the  characteristic  title  used  in  speaking  about 
Jesus  in  the  Jerusalem  Church.  If  the  belief  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  about  Jesus  was  so  exclusively  a  Son-of-Man  dogma, 
as  Bousset  supposes  it  was,  and  if  that  church  was  so  little 
concerned  with  historical  fact,  it  seems  somewhat  strange  that 
the  title,  "Son  of  Man,"  has  not  been  allowed,  despite  its 
eschatological  character,  to  intrude  into  the  Gospel  narrative. 
Another  hypothesis  will  always  suggest  itself — the  hypothesis 
that  Jesus  really  used  the  title,  "Son  of  Man,"  in  a  somewhat 
mysterious  way,  in  speaking  about  Himself,  and  that  the  mem- 
ory of  the  fact  that  it  was  His  own  special  designation  of 
Himself  has  been  preserved  in  the  curious  limitation  of  the 
use  of  the  title  in  the  New  Testament.  In  that  case,  in  view 
of  the  accuracy  thus  established  with  regard  to  one  title,  the 
testimony  of  the  Gospels  with  regard  to  the  other  title,  "Lord," 
cannot  lightly  be  rejected. 

But  the  evidence  for  the  use  of  the  title  "Lord"  in  the 
primitive  Jerusalem  Church  is  not  contained  merely  in  the 
Gospels.  Other  evidence  appears  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

The  most  obvious  fact  is  that  Paul  himself  uses  the  term 
as  the  characteristic  title  of  Jesus.  And  it  is  equally  evident 
that  he  did  not  invent  this  usage.  Evidently  it  was  a  continua- 
tion of  a  usage  which  prevailed  before  he  began  his  work. 
So  much  is  fully  admitted  by  Bousset.  But  whence  did  Paul 
derive  the  usage?  Or  rather,  supposing  that  he  began  his 
own  use  of  the  title  at  the  moment  of  the  conversion,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  representation  in  Acts  ("Who  art  thou, 
Lord?"),  whence  did  he  derive  his  assumption  that  the  title 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  299 

was  already  in  use?  The  most  obvious  view  is  that  he  assumed 
the  title  to  be  already  known  because  it  was  in  use  in  the  early 
Jerusalem  Church.  The  matter-of-course  way  in  which  Paul 
applies  the  title  "Lord"  to  Jesus  has  always,  until  recently, 
been  taken  as  indicating  that  the  title  had  been  prevalent  from 
the  very  beginning  of  the  Church's  life. 

But  at  this  point  appears  one  of  the  most  important  fea- 
tures of  Bousset's  theory.  Paul  derived  the  title  "Lord," 
Bousset  believes,  from  those  who  had  been  Christians  before 
him ;  but  he  derived  it,  not  from  the  Jerusalem  Church,  but 
from  the  Christian  communities  in  such  cities  as  Antioch, 
Tarsus,  and  perhaps  Damascus.  It  is  in  these  communities, 
therefore,  that  the  genesis  of  the  title  "Lord,"  as  applied  to 
Jesus,  is  to  be  placed. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  difficulties  which 
beset  this  interposition  of  an  extra  link  between  Paul  and  the 
Jerusalem  Church.  It  has  been  shown  that  what  Paul  "re- 
ceived" he  received  not  from  the  churches  at  Antioch  and 
Tarsus  but  from  the  original  disciples  at  Jerusalem.  But  in 
addition  to  the  general  considerations  which  connect  the  whole 
of  Paulinism  with  the  Jerusalem  tradition  about  Jesus,  there 
are  certain  special  indications  of  a  Jerusalem  origin  of  the 
title  "Lord." 

One  such  indication  may  be  found,  perhaps,  in  Gal.  i.  19. 
When,  in  connection  with  a  visit  to  Jerusalem  which  occurred 
three  years  after  the  conversion,  Paul  speaks  of  "James  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,"  the  natural  inference  is  that  "the  brother 
of  the  Lord"  was  a  designation  which  was  applied  to  James  in 
Jerusalem;  and  if  so,  then  the  title  "Lord"  was  current  in  the 
Jerusalem  Church.1  Of  course,  the  inference  is  not  abso- 
lutely certain;  Paul  might  have  designated  James  as  "the 
brother  of  the  Lord"  because  that  was  the  designation  of 
James  in  the  Galatian  Churches  and  the  designation  which 
Paul  himself  commonly  used,  even  if  it  was  not  current  in 
Jerusalem.  But  the  natural  impression  which  the  passage 
will  always  make  upon  an  unsophisticated  reader  is  that  Paul 
is  using  a  terminology  which  was  already  fixed  among  James' 
associates  at  the  time  and  place  to  which  the  narrative  refers. 
It  should  be  observed  that  in  speaking  of  Peter,  Paul  actually 
uses  the  Aramaic  form  and  not  the  Greek  form  of  the  name. 
1  Knowling,  The  Witness  of  the  Epistles,  1892,  p.  15. 


300          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

The  indications  are  that  with  regard  to  the  leaders  of  the 
Jerusalem  Church  Paul  is  accustomed  generally  to  follow  the 
Jerusalem  usage.  And  the  evidence  of  such  a  passage  as 
Gal.  i.  18,  19,  where  Jerusalem  conditions  are  mentioned,  is 
doubly  strong.  The  use  in  this  passage  of  the  title  "brother 
of  the  Lord"  would  indeed  not  be  absolutely  decisive  if  it  stood 
alone.  But  taken  in  connection  with  the  other  evidence,  it 
does  point  strongly  to  the  prevalence  in  the  early  Jerusalem 
Church  of  the  title  "Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus. 

More  stress  is  usually  laid  upon  the  occurrence  of  "Mara- 
natha"  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  22.  "Maranatha"  is  Aramaic,  and  it 
means  "Our  Lord,  come!"  Why  was  the  Aramaic  word  "Our 
Lord"  included,  as  a  designation  of  Jesus,  in  a  Greek  letter? 
The  natural  supposition  is  that  it  had  been  hallowed  by  its  use 
in  the  Aramaic-speaking  church  at  Jerusalem.  Accordingly 
it  pushes  the  use  of  the  title  "Lord"  back  to  the  primitive 
Christian  community;  the  title  cannot,  therefore,  be  regarded 
as  a  product  of  the  Hellenistic  churches  in  Antioch  and  Tarsus. 

This  argument  has  been  met  in  various  ways.  According 
to  Bohlig,  the  passage  does  attest  the  application  of  the 
Aramaic  title  "Lord"  to  Jesus,  but  that  application,  Bohlig 
believes,  was  made  not  in  Palestine  but  in  Syria,  not  in  Jerusa- 
lem but  in  Antioch.  Syria,  indeed,  with  Cilicia,  was,  Bohlig 
insists,  the  special  home  of  the  designation  "Lord"  as  applied 
to  the  gods ;  the  word  "Baal/'  the  common  Semitic  title  of  the 
Syrian  gods,  means  "Lord."  And  Bohlig  also  points  to  the 
appearance  of  the  title  Mar  along  with  Baal  as  a  title  of 
divinity.1 

But  why  was  the  Semitic  title  retained  in  a  Greek  letter? 
In  answer  to  this  question  the  bilingual  condition  of  Syria 
may  be  appealed  to.  But  what  particular  sanctity  could  be 
attached  to  the  Semitic  usage  of  Syria;  why  should  Paul  fol- 
low that  usage  in  writing  to  a  church  that  was  situated,  not  in 
the  East,  but  in  Greece  proper?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
title  "Mar"  had  been  hallowed  by  the  use  of  the  original  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus,  then  the  retention  of  the  original  word  without 
translation  is  perfectly  natural. 

Bousset  now  proposes   another  hypothesis.2     The  phrase 

*See  Bohlig,  "Zum  Begriff  Kyrios  bei  Paulus,"  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  die 
neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  xiv,  1913,  pp.  23-37. 

'Bousset,  Jesus  der  Herr,  1916,  pp.  22f.  Compare  Kyrios  Christos, 
1913,  p.  103. 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  301 

"Maranatha,"  he  says,  probably  had  nothing  to  do  with  Jesus ; 
it  constitutes  merely  a  formula  of  cursing  like  the  "anathema" 
which  immediately  precedes  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  22;  the  Maran  (or 
Marana)  refers  not  to  Jesus,  but  to  God;  the  formula  means, 
"Our  Lord  (God)  shall  come  and  judge."  But  Bousset  ad- 
duces no  real  evidence  in  support  of  his  explanation.  No  such 
formula  of  cursing  seems  to  have  been  found  in  Semitic  sources. 
And  why  should  Paul  introduce  such  a  Semitic  curse  in  writing 
to  Corinth?  The  latest  hypothesis  of  Bousset  is  certainly  a 
desperate  expedient. 

"Marana"  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  therefore,  certainly  refers  to 
Jesus,  and  the  strong  presumption  is  that  it  was  derived  from 
Palestine.  The  passage  constitutes  a  real  testimony  to  the 
use  of  the  title  "Lord"  as  a  designation  of  Jesus  in  the  Pales- 
tinian Church. 

Possibly,  moreover,  this  passage  may  also  serve  to  fix  the 
original  Aramaic  form  of  the  title.  Bousset  and  certain  other 
scholars  have  been  inclined  to  detect  a  linguistic  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  attributing  the  title  "Lord"  to  the  Aramaic-speak- 
ing Church.  The  absolute  "Mara,"  it  is  said,  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  current  in  Aramaic;  only  "Mari"  ("my  Lord") 
and  "Maran"  ("our  Lord")  seem  to  have  been  commonly 
used.  But  it  is  just  in  the  absolute  form,  "the  Lord,"  that  the 
title  appears  most  frequently  in  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
Therefore,  it  is  concluded,  this  New  Testament  Greek  usage 
cannot  go  back  to  the  usage  of  the  Aramaic-speaking  Church. 
It  will  perhaps  be  unnecessary  to  enter  upon  the  linguistic  side 
of  this  argument.  Various  possibilities  might  be  suggested  for 
examination  to  the  students  of  Aramaic — among  others,  the 
possibility  that  "Mari,"  "Maran,"  had  come  to  be  used  abso- 
lutely, like  "Rabbi,"  "Rabban,"  the  original  meaning  of  the 
possessive  suffix  having  been  obscured.1  But  in  general  it 
can  probably  be  said  that  if  persons  of  Aramaic  speech  had 
desired  to  designate  Jesus,  absolutely,  as  "Lord"  or  "the 
Lord,"  the  language  was  presumably  not  so  poor  but  that  the 
essential  idea  could  have  been  expressed.  And  it  is  the  essen- 
tial idea,  not  the  word,  which  is  really  important.  The  im- 
portant thing  is  that  the  attitude  toward  Jesus  which  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  Greek  word  "Kyrios,"  was,  unless  all  indica- 
tions fail,  also  the  attitude  of  the  Jerusalem  Church. 

But  may  not  the  Greek  title  itself  have  originated  in 
1  Compare  Bousset,  Kyrios  Christos,  1913,  p.  99,  Anm.  3. 


302  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

Jerusalem?  This  possibility  has  been  neglected  in  recent  dis- 
cussions of  the  subject.  But  it  is  worthy  of  the  most  careful 
consideration.  It  should  be  remembered  that  Palestine  in 
the  first  century  after  Christ  was  a  bilingual  country.1  No 
doubt  Aramaic  was  in  common  use  among  the  great  body  of 
the  people,  and  no  doubt  it  was  the  language  of  Jesus'  teach- 
ing. But  Greek  was  also  in  use,  and  it  is  by  no  means  beyond 
the  bounds  of  possibility  that  even  Jesus  spoke  Greek  when 
occasion  demanded.  At  any  rate,  the  early  Jerusalem  Church 
included  a  large  body  of  Greek-speaking  persons ;  the  "Hel- 
lenists" are  mentioned  in  Acts  vi.  1  in  a  way  to  which  high 
historical  importance  is  usually  attributed.  It  is  altogether 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  terminology  current  in  the  Jerusa- 
lem Church  from  the  very  beginning,  or  almost  from  the  very 
beginning,  was  Greek  as  well  as  Aramaic.  From  this  Greek- 
speaking  part  of  the  Church  the  original  apostles  could  hardly 
have  held  themselves  aloof.  Total  ignorance  of  Greek  on  the 
part  of  Galileans  is  improbable  in  view  of  what  is  known  in 
general  about  linguistic  conditions  in  Palestine;  and  in  the 
capital,  with  its  foreign  connections,  and  its  hosts  of  Hellen- 
ists, the  opportunity  for  the  use  of  Greek  would  be  enormously 
increased.  It  is  altogether  improbable,  therefore,  that  the 
Greek  terminology  of  the  Hellenists  resident  in  Jerusalem  was 
formed  without  the  approval  of  the  original  disciples  of  Jesus. 
When  the  apostle  Paul,  therefore,  assumes  everywhere  that  the 
term  "Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus  was  no  peculiarity  of  his  own, 
but  was  familiar  to  all  his  readers,  the  phenomenon  can  be 
best  explained  if  not  only  the  sense  of  the  title,  but  also  its 
Greek  form,  was  due  to  the  mother  Church.  In  other  words, 
the  transition  from  Aramaic  to  Greek,  as  the  language  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  did  not  occur  at  Antioch  or  Tarsus,  as 
Bousset  seems  to  think.  In  all  probability  it  occurred  at 
Jerusalem,  and  occurred  under  the  supervision  of  the  imme- 
diate friends  of  Jesus.  It  could  not  possibly,  therefore,  have 
involved  a  transformation  of  the  original  faith. 

But  the  linguistic  considerations  just  adduced  are  only 
supplementary.  Even  if  the  use  of  Greek  in  Jerusalem  was 
less  important  than  has  here  been  suggested,  the  state  of  the 

xZahn,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3te  Aufl.,  i,  1906,  pp.  24-32, 
39-47  (English  Translation,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  2nd  Ed., 
1917,  i,  pp.  34-46,  57-67). 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  303 

case  is  not  essentially  altered.  Every  attempt  at  separating 
the  religion  of  Paul  sharply  from  the  religion  of  the  Jerusa- 
lem Church  has  resulted  in  failure.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  linguistic  facts,  the  divine  Lord  of  the  Epistles  was  also 
the  Lord  of  those  who  had  been  intimate  friends  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 

Bousset  of  course  rejects  this  conclusion.  But  he  does 
so  on  insufficient  grounds.  His  theory,  it  may  well  be  main- 
tained, has  already  broken  down  at  the  most  decisive  point. 
It  is  not  really  possible  to  interpose  the  Christianity  of  Antioch 
and  Tarsus  between  the  Jerusalem  Church  and  Paul;  it  is 
not  really  possible  to  suppose  that  that  Christianity  of  Antioch 
was  essentially  different  from  the  Jerusalem  Christianity 
which  had  given  it  birth;  in  particular  it  is  not  possible  to 
deny  the  use  of  the  title  "Lord,"  and  the  religious  attitude 
toward  Jesus  which  the  title  represents,  to  the  original  friends 
of  Jesus.  Examination  of  the  further  elements  of  Bousset's 
theory,  therefore,  can  be  undertaken  only  under  protest.  But 
such  examination  is  important.  For  it  will  confirm  the  un- 
favorable impression  which  has  already  been  received. 

If,  as  Bousset  says,  the  title  "Lord,"  as  a  designation  of 
Jesus,  originated  not  at  Jerusalem  but  at  Antioch,  in  what 
way  did  it  originate?  It  orginated,  Bousset  believes,  in  the 
meetings  of  the  Church,  and  it  originated  in  dependence  upon 
the  surrounding  pagan  cults.  At  Jerusalem,  according  to 
Bousset,  the  piety  of  the  disciples  was  purely  eschatological ; 
Jesus  was  awaited  with  eagerness,  He  was  to  come  in  glory, 
but  meanwhile  He  was  absent.  There  was  no  thought  of  com- 
munion with  Him.  At  Antioch,  however,  a  different  attitude 
began  to  be  assumed.  As  the  little  community  of  disciples 
was  united  for  comfort  and  prayer  and  the  reception  of  the 
ecstatic  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  it  came  to  be  felt  that  Jesus  was 
actually  present;  the  wonderful  experiences  of  the  meetings 
came  to  be  attributed  to  Him.  But  if  He  was  actually  present 
in  the  meetings  of  the  Church,  a  new  title  was  required  to  ex- 
press what  He  meant  to  those  who  belonged  to  Him.  And  one 
title  lay  ready  to  hand.  It  was  the  title  "Lord."  That  title 
was  used  by  the  pagans  to  designate  their  own  false  gods. 
Surely  no  lower  title  could  be  used  by  the  Christians  to  desig- 
nate their  Jesus.  The  title  "Lord,"  moreover,  was  especially 
a  cult-title;  it  was  used  to  designate  those  gods  who  presided 


304  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

especially  over  the  worship,  over  the  "cult,"  of  the  pagan  re- 
ligions. But  it  was  just  in  the  "cult,"  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Church,  that  the  new  attitude  toward  Jesus  had  arisen.  The 
experience  of  Jesus'  presence,  therefore,  and  the  title  which 
would  give  expression  to  it,  were  naturally  joined  together. 
In  the  rapture  of  a  meeting  of  the  group  of  worshipers,  in 
the  midst  of  wonderful  ecstatic  experiences,  some  member  of 
the  Church  at  Antioch  or  Tarsus,  or  perhaps  many  members 
simultaneously,  uttered  the  momentous  words,  "Lord  Jesus." 

Thus  occurred,  according  to  the  theory  of  Bousset,  the 
most  momentous  event  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  one  of 
the  most  momentous  events  in  the  whole  religious  history  of 
the  race.  Christianity  ceased  to  be  merely  faith  in  God  like 
the  faith  which  Jesus  had;  it  became  faith  in  Jesus.  Jesus 
was  now  no  longer  merely  an  example  for  faith ;  He  had  be- 
come the  object  of  faith.  The  prophet  of  Nazareth  had  be- 
come an  object  of  worship ;  the  Messiah  had  given  way  to  the 
"Lord."  Jesus  had  taken  a  place  which  before  had  been 
assigned  only  to  God. 

This  estimate  of  the  event  of  course  depends  upon  Bousset's 
critical  conclusions  about  the  New  Testament  literature.  And 
those  conclusions  are  open  to  serious  objections.  The  objec- 
tions have  already  been  considered  so  far  as  the  title  "Lord" 
is  concerned;  that  title  cannot  really  be  denied  to  the  original 
disciples  of  Jesus.  Equally  serious  are  the  objections  against 
what  Bousset  says  about  "faith  in  Jesus."  A  consideration 
of  these  objections  lies  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  dis- 
cussion. The  ground  has  been  covered  in  masterly  fashion 
by  James  Denney,  who  has  shown  that  even  in  the  earliest 
strata  of  the  Gospel  literature,  as  they  are  distinguished  by 
modern  criticism  of  sources,  Jesus  appears  not  merely  as  an 
example  for  faith  but  as  the  object  of  faith — indeed,  that 
Jesus  actually  so  presented  Himself.1  Christianity  was 
never  a  mere  imitation  of  the  faith  which  Jesus  reposed  in 
God.  But  it  is  now  necessary  to  return  to  the  examination 
of  the  Antioch  Church. 

The  title  "Lord,"   as   applied  to   Jesus,   Bousset  believes, 

originated  in  the  meetings  of  the  Antioch  disciples — in  what 

may  be  called,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  the  "public  worship" 

of  the  Church.     This  assertion  constitutes  an  important  step 

1  Denney,  Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  1908. 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  305 

in  Bousset's  reconstruction.  But  the  evidence  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  it  is  insufficient.  The  passages  cited  from  the  Pauline 
Epistles  show,  indeed,  that  great  importance  was  attributed 
to  the  meetings  of  the  Church;  they  show  perhaps  that  the 
custom  of  holding  such  meetings  prevailed  from  the  very 
beginning.  But  they  do  not  show  that  the  whole  of  the  Church's 
devotion  to  Christ  and  the  whole  of  Paul's  religion  were  derived, 
by  way  of  development,  from  the  cult.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  either  that  the  individual  relation  to  Christ  was  de- 
rived from  the  cult,  or  that  the  cult  was  derived  from  the 
individual  relation.  There  is  also  a  third  possibility — that 
individual  piety  and  the  cult  were  both  practised  from  the 
very  beginning  side  by  side.  At  any  rate,  Bousset  has  vastly 
underestimated  the  importance  of  the  conversion  as  determining 
the  character  of  Paul's  religious  life.  The  Damascus  experi- 
ence lay  at  the  very  foundation  of  all  of  Paul's  thinking  and 
all  of  his  actions.  Yet  that  experience  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  cult. 

But  even  if,  in  accordance  with  Bousset's  reconstruction, 
the  title  "Lord"  was  applied  to  Jesus  under  the  influence  of 
the  ecstatic  conditions  that  prevailed  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Church,  the  origin  of  the  title  is  not  yet  explained.  How  did 
the  Christians  at  Antioch  come  to  think  that  their  ecstatic 
experiences  were  due  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  presiding  over 
their  meetings?  And  if  they  did  come  to  think  so,  why  did 
they  choose  just  the  title  "Lord"  in  order  to  express  the  dig- 
nity that  they  desired  to  attribute  to  Him? 

At  this  point,  Bousset  has  recourse  to  a  comparison  with 
the  surrounding  paganism.  The  term  "Lord,"  he  says,  was 
common  in  the  Hellenistic  age  as  a  title  of  the  cult-gods  of 
the  various  forms  of  worship.  And  the  material  which  Bousset 
has  collected  in  proof  of  this  assertion  is  entirely  convincing. 
Not  only  in  the  worship  of  the  Emperors  and  other  rulers,  but 
also  in  the  Hellenized  religions  of  the  East,  the  title  "Lord" 
was  well  known  as  a  designation  of  divinity.  Indeed,  Paul 
himself  refers  plainly  to  the  currency  of  the  title.  "For  though 
there  be,"  he  says,  "that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven 
or  on  earth;  as  there  are  gods  many,  and  lords  many;  yet  to 
us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
unto  him;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  through  him"  (1  Cor.  viii.  5,  6).  In  this  pas- 


306  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

sage,  the  "lords  many"  are  of  course  heathen  gods,  and  it  is 
clearly  implied  that  the  term  "lord"  was  the  title  which  was 
given  them  by  their  own  worshipers.  Bousset  is  entirely  cor- 
rect, therefore,  when  he  says  that  the  title  "Lord,"  at  Antioch, 
at  Tarsus,  and  everywhere  in  the  Greco-Roman  world,  was 
clearly  a  title  of  divinity.  Indeed,  it  may  be  added,  the  word 
"lord"  was  no  whit  inferior  in  dignity  to  the  term  "god." 
When  the  early  Christian  missionaries,  therefore,  called  Jesus 
"Lord,"  it  was  perfectly  plain  to  their  pagan  hearers  every- 
where that  they  meant  to  ascribe  divinity  to  Him  and  desired 
to  worship  Him. 

Thus  the  currency  of  the  title  in  pagan  religion  was  of 
great  importance  for  the  early  Christian  mission.  But  that 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  title  was  applied  to  Jesus 
in  the  first  place  because  of  the  pagan  usage,  or  that  the 
ascription  of  divine  dignity  to  Jesus  was  first  ventured  upon 
because  the  Christians  desired  to  place  the  one  whom  they 
revered  in  a  position  at  least  equal  to  that  of  the  pagan  cult- 
gods.  It  is  these  assertions  which  have  not  been  proved.  In- 
deed, they  are  improbable  in  the  extreme.  They  are  rendered 
improbable,  for  example,  by  the  sturdy  monotheism  of  the 
Christian  communities.  That  monotheism  was  not  at  all  im- 
paired by  the  honor  which  was  paid  to  Jesus ;  the  Christian 
communities  were  just  as  intolerant  of  other  gods  as  had  been 
the  ancient  Hebrew  prophets.  This  intolerance  and  exclusive- 
ness  of  the  early  Church  constitutes  a  stupendous  difference 
between  the  Christian  "Jesus-cult"  and  the  cults  of  the  other 
"Lords."  The  pagan  cults  were  entirely  tolerant ;  worship 
of  one  Lord  did  not  mean  the  relinquishment  of  another.  But 
to  the  Christians  there  was  one  Lord  and  one  only.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  see  how  in  an  atmosphere  of  such  monotheism 
the  influence  of  the  pagan  cults  could  have  been  allowed  to 
intrude.  Any  thought  of  the  analogy  which  an  application  of 
the  title  "Lord"  to  Jesus  would  set  up  between  the  meetings 
of  the  Church  at  Antioch  and  the  worship  of  the  heathen  gods 
would  have  hindered,  rather  than  have  actually  caused,  the 
use  of  the  title.  Evidently  the  title,  and  especially  the  divine 
dignity  of  Jesus  which  the  title  expressed,  were  quite  inde- 
pendent of  the  pagan  usage. 

1Warfteld,    '"God    our    Father    and    the    Lord    Jesus    Christ,'"    in    The 
Princeton  Theological  Review,  xv,  1917,  p.  18. 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  307 

Certainly  the  mere  fact  that  the  Christians  used  a  title 
which  was  also  used  in  the  pagan  cults  does  not  establish  any 
dependence  upon  paganism.  For  the  title  "Lord"1  was 
almost  as  well  established  as  a  designation  of  divinity  as  was 
the  term  "God."  2  Whatever  had  been  the  origin  of  the 
religious  use  of  the  word,  that  use  had  become  a  part  of  the 
Greek  language.  A  missionary  who  desired  to  proclaim  the 
one  true  God  was  obliged,  if  he  spoke  in  Greek,  to  use  the  term 
"God,"  which  of  course  had  been  used  in  pagan  religion.  So 
if  he  desired  to  designate  Jesus  as  God,  by  some  word  which 
at  the  same  time  would  distinguish  Him  from  God  the  Father, 
he  was  obliged  to  use  the  word  "Lord,"  though  that  word  also 
had  been  used  in  paganism.  Neither  in  the  one  case  nor  in  the 
other  did  the  use  of  a  Greek  word  involve  the  slightest  influ- 
ence of  the  conceptions  which  had  been  attached  to  the  word 
in  a  polytheistic  religion. 

But  there  was  a  far  stronger  reason  for  the  application 
of  the  Greek  term  "Lord"  to  Jesus  than  that  which  was  found 
in  its  general  currency  among  Greek-speaking  peoples.  The 
religious  use  of  the  term  was  not  limited  to  the  pagan  cults, 
but  appears  also,  and  if  anything  even  more  firmly  established, 
in  the  Greek  Old  Testament.  The  word  "Lord"  is  used  by  the 
Septuagint  to  translate  the  "Jahwe"  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
It  would  be  quite  irrelevant  to  discuss  the  reasons  which  gov- 
erned the  translators  in  their  choice  of  this  particular  word. 
No  doubt  some  word  for  "Lord"  was  required  by  the  associa- 
tions which  had  already  clustered  around  the  Hebrew  word. 
And  various  reasons  may  be  suggested  for  the  choice  of 
"kyrios"  rather  than  some  other  Greek  word  meaning 
"lord."  3  Possibly  the  root  meaning  of  "kyrios"  better  ex- 
pressed the  idea  which  was  intended;  perhaps,  also,  a  religious 
meaning  had  already  been  attached  to  "kyrios,"  which  the 
other  words  did  not  possess.  At  any  rate,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  reason,  "kyrios"  was  the  word  which  was  chosen. 
And  the  fact  is  of  capital  importance.  For  it  was  among  the 
readers  of  the  Septuagint  that  Christianity  first  made  its 
way.  The  Septuagint  was  the  Bible  of  the  Jewish  synagogues, 
and  in  the  synagogues  the  reading  of  it  was  heard  not  only 


8  As,  for  example, 


308          THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

by  Jews  but  also  by  hosts  of  Gentiles,  the  "God-fearers"  of 
the  Book  of  Acts.  It  was  with  the  "God-fearers"  that  the 
Gentile  mission  began.  And  even  where  there  were  Gentile 
converts  who  had  not  passed  at  all  through  the  school  of  the 
synagogue — in  the  very  earliest  period  perhaps  such  converts 
were  few — even  then  the  Septuagint  was  at  once  used  in  their 
instruction.  Thus  when  the  Christian  missionaries  used  the 
word  "Lord"  of  Jesus,  their  hearers  knew  at  once  what  they 
meant.  They  knew  at  once  that  Jesus  occupied  a  place  which 
is  occupied  only  by  God.  For  the  word  "Lord"  is  used  count- 
less times  in  the  Greek  scriptures  as  the  holiest  name  of  the 
covenant  God  of  Israel,  and  these  passages  were  applied  freely 
to  Jesus. 

This  Septuagint  use  of  the  term  "Lord,"  with  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Septuagint  passages  to  Jesus,  which  appears 
as  a  matter  of  course  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  was  of  vastly 
more  importance  for  the  early  Christian  mission  than  the  use 
of  the  term  in  the  pagan  cults.  And  it  sheds  vastly  more 
light  upon  the  original  significance  of  the  term  as  applied  to 
Jesus.  But  the  pagan  usage  is  interesting,  and  the  exhibition 
of  it  by  Bousset  and  others  should  be  thankfully  received.  An 
important  fact  has  been  established  more  and  more  firmly  by 
modern  research — the  fact  that  the  Greek  word  "kyrios"  in  the 
first  century  of  our  era  was,  wherever  the  Greek  language 
extended,  distinctly  a  designation  of  divinity.  The  common 
usage  of  the  word  indeed  persisted;  the  word  still  expressed 
the  relation  which  a  master  sustained  toward  his  slaves.  But 
the  word  had  come  to  be  a  characteristically  religious  term, 
and  it  is  in  the  religious  sense,  especially  as  fixed  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint, that  it  appears  in  the  New  Testament. 

Thus  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  New  Testament  usage 
when  Jesus  is  called,  by  certain  persons  in  the  modern  Church, 
"the  Master,"  rather  than  "the  Lord."  Sometimes,  perhaps, 
this  usage  is  adopted  in  conscious  protest  against  the  New 
Testament  conception  of  the  deity  of  Christ;  Jesus  is  spoken 
of  as  "the  Master,"  in  very  much  the  way  in  which  the  leader 
of  a  school  of  artists  is  spoken  of  as  "the  Master"  by  his  fol- 
lowers. Or  else  the  word  means  merely  the  one  whose  com- 
mands are  to  be  obeyed.  But  sometimes  the  modern  fashion 
is  adopted  by  devout  men  and  women  with  the  notion  that  the 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  309 

English  word  "Lord"  has  been  worn  down  and  that  the  use 
of  the  word  "Master"  is  a  closer  approach  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  Testament.  This  notion  is  false.  In  trans- 
lating the  New  Testament  designation  of  Jesus,  one  should 
not  desire  to  get  back  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  word 
"kyrios."  For  the  Greek  word  had  already  undergone  a  de- 
velopment, and  as  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament  it 
was  clearly  a  religious  term.  It  had  exactly  the  religious 
associations  which  are  now  possessed  by  our  English  word 
"Lord."  And  for  very  much  the  same  reason.  The  religious 
associations  of  the  English  word  "Lord"  are  due  to  Bible 
usage;  and  the  religious  associations  of  the  New  Testament 
word  "kyrios"  were  also  due  to  Bible  usage — the  usage  of  the 
Septuagint.  The  Christian,  then,  should  remember  that  "a 
little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing."  The  uniform  substitu- 
tion of  "the  Master"  for  "the  Lord"  in  speaking  of  Jesus  has- 
only  a  false  appearance  of  freshness  and  originality.  In  reality 
it  sometimes  means  a  departure  from  the  spirit  of  the  New 
Testament  usage. 

Accordingly,  Bousset  has  performed  a  service  in  setting 
in  clear  relief  the  religious  meaning  of  the  word  "Lord."  But 
he  has  not  succeeded  in  explaining  the  application  of  that 
word  to  Jesus. 

Further  difficulties,  moreover,  beset  Bousset's  theory.  The 
term  "Lord"  as  applied  to  Jesus,  and  the  religious  attitude 
toward  Jesus  expressed  by  the  term,  arose,  according  to  Bous- 
set, in  the  meetings  of  such  communities  as  the  one  at  Antioch, 
and  under  the  influence  of  pagan  conceptions.  But  of  course 
Bousset's  explanation  of  the  origin  of  Paulinism  has  not  yet 
been  completely  set  forth.  Paulinism  is  something  far  more 
than  an  ecstatic  worship  of  a  cult-god;  the  personal  relation 
to  Christ  dominates  every  department  of  the  apostle's  life. 

Bousset  recognizes  this  fact.  The  religion  of  Paul,  he 
admits,  is  something  far  more  than  the  religion  which  was 
expressed  in  the  meetings  of  the  Antioch  Church.  But  he  sup- 
poses that  the  other  elements  of  Paul's  religion,  far-reaching 
as  they  are,  had  at  least  their  starting-point  in  the  cult.  Here 
is  to  be  found  one  of  the  least  plausible  elements  in  the  whole 
construction.  Bousset  has  underestimated  the  individualistic 
character  of  Paul's  religion.  At  least  he  has  not  succeeded 


310  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

in  showing  that  the  Pauline  life  "in  Christ"  or  "in  the  Lord" 
was  produced  by  development  from  ecstatic  experiences  in  the 
meetings  of  the  Antioch  Church. 

But  if  the  individualistic  religion  of  Paul  was  developed 
from  the  "cult,"  how  was  it  developed?  How  shall  the  intro- 
duction of  the  new  elements  be  explained?  Bousset  has  at- 
tacked this  problem  with  great  earnestness.  And  he  tries  to 
show  that  the  religion  of  Paul  as  it  appears  in  the  Epistles 
was  developed  from  the  cult  religion  of  Antioch  by  the  identifi- 
cation of  "the  Lord"  with  "the  Spirit,"  and  by  the  generalizing 
and  ethicizing  of  the  conception  of  the  Spirit's  activity. 

The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  Bousset  believes,  was 
derived  from  the  pagan  mystical  religion  of  the  Hellenistic 
age.  Quite  aside  from  the  matter  of  terminology — though  the 
contentions  of  Reitzenstein  are  thought  by  Bousset  to  be  es- 
sentially correct — the  fundamental  pessimistic  dualism  of  Paul 
was  based,  according  to  Bousset,  upon  that  widespread  type 
of  thought  and  life  which  appears  in  the  mystery  religions  and 
in  the  Hermetic  writings.  According  to  this  pessimistic  way 
of  thinking,  salvation  could  never  be  attained  by  human  na- 
ture, even  with  divine  aid,  but  only  by  an  entirely  new  begin- 
ning, produced  by  the  substitution  of  the  divine  nature  for  the 
old  man.  By  the  apostle  Paul,  Bousset  continues,  this  super- 
naturalism,  this  conception  of  the  dominance  of  divine  power 
in  the  new  life,  was  extended  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the  cult 
or  of  visionary  experiences ;  the  Spirit  was  made  to  be  the 
ruling  principle  of  the  Christian's  life;  not  only  prophecy, 
tongues,  healing,  and  the  like,  were  now  regarded  as  the  fruit 
of  the  Spirit,  but  also  love,  joy,  peace,  longsuffering,  kind- 
ness, goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  self-control.  But  this 
Pauline  extension  of  the  Spirit's  activity,  Bousset  insists,  did 
not  involve  the  slightest  weakening  of  the  supernaturalism 
which  was  characteristic  of  the  original  conception ;  the  Spirit 
that  produced  love,  joy,  peace,  had  just  as  little  to  do  with 
the  human  spirit  as  the  Spirit  that  caused  men  to  speak  with 
tongues.  And  the  supernaturalism  which  here  appears  in 
glorified  form  was  derived,  Bousset  concludes,  from  the  mys- 
tical pagan  religion  of  the  Hellenistic  age. 

This  contention  has  already  been  discussed,  and  the  weak- 
ness of  it  has  been  pointed  out.  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit  was  not  derived  from  contemporary  paganism.  But 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  311 

the  exposition  of  Bousset's  theory  has  not  yet  been  finished. 
The  Spirit  whose  activities  were  extended  by  Paul  into  the 
innermost  recesses  of  the  Christian's  life  was  identified,  Bousset 
says,  with  "the  Lord"  (2  Cor.  iii.  17).  This  identification 
exerted  an  important  influence  upon  both  the  elements  that 
were  brought  together;  it  exerted  an  important  influence  upon 
the  conception  both  of  "the  Lord"  and  of  "the  Spirit."  If 
"the  Lord"  was  identified,  or  brought  into  very  close  relation, 
with  the  Spirit,  and  if  the  Spirit's  activity  extended  into  the 
whole  of  life,  then  "the  Lord"  could  no  longer  be  for  Paul 
merely  the  cult-god  who  was  present  in  the  meetings  of  the 
Church.  On  the  contrary,  He  would  have  to  be  present  every- 
where where  the  Spirit  was  present — that  is,  He  would  have 
to  be  that  in  which  the  Christian  lived  and  moved  and  had  his 
being.  Thus  Paul  could  form  the  astonishing  phrase  "in 
Christ"  or  "in  the  Lord,"  for  which  Bousset  admits  that  no 
analogy  is  to  be  found  in  pagan  religion.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  conception  of  the  Spirit,  Bousset  believes,  was  necessarily 
modified  by  its  connection  with  "the  Lord."  By  the  identifi- 
cation with  an  actual  person  who  had  lived  but  a  few  years 
before,  "the  Spirit"  was  given  a  personal  quality  which  other- 
wise it  did  not  possess.  Or,  to  put  the  same  thing  in  other 
words,  the  Pauline  phrase  "in  the  Lord"  is  not  exactly  the 
same  in  meaning  as  the  phrase  "in  the  Spirit" ;  for  it  possesses 
a  peculiar  personal  character.  "This  remarkable  mingling 
of  abstraction  and  personality,"  says  Bousset,  "this  connec- 
tion of  a  religious  principle  with  a  person  who  had  walked  here 
on  the  earth  and  had  here  suffered  death,  is  a  phenomenon  of 
peculiar  power  and  originality." 

At  this  point,  Bousset  is  in  danger  of  being  untrue  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  his  reconstruction;  he  is  in  danger 
of  bringing  the  religion  of  Paul  into  connection  with  the  con- 
crete person  of  Jesus.  But  he  detects  the  danger  and  avoids 
it.  It  must  not  be  supposed,  he  says,  that  Paul  had  any  very 
clear  impression  of  the  characteristics  of  the  historical  Jesus. 
For  if  he  had  had  such  an  impression,  he  never  could  have  con- 
nected Jesus  with  an  abstraction  like  the  Spirit.  All  that 
he  was  interested  in,  then,  was  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  lived 
and  especially  that  He  had  died. 

Yet  these  bare  facts  are  thought  to  have  been  sufficient 
to  impart  to  Paul's  notion  of  the  Spirit-Lord  that  peculiar 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

personal  quality  which  arouses  the  admiration  of  Bousset! 
The  truth  is,  Bousset  finds  himself  at  this  point  face  to  face 
with  the  difficulty  which  besets  every  naturalistic  explanation 
of  the  genesis  of  Paul's  religion.  The  trouble  is  that  a  close 
connection  of  Paul  with  the  historical  Jesus  is  imperatively 
required  by  the  historian  in  order  to  impart  to  Paul's  relation 
to  Christ  that  warm,  personal  quality  which  shines  out  from 
every  page  of  the  Epistles ;  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  a  wide 
separation  of  Paul  from  the  historical  Jesus  is  just  as  im- 
peratively required  in  order  that  Paul  might  not  be  hampered 
by  historical  tradition  in  raising  Jesus  to  divine  dignity  and 
in  bringing  Him  into  connection  with  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Modern  criticism  has  wavered  between  the  two  require- 
ments ;  it  tries  to  preserve  the  rights  of  each.  Bousset  is  more 
impressed  by  the  second  requirement ;  Wernle,  his  opponent,  is 
more  impressed  by  the  former.1  But  both  are  equally  wrong. 
There  is  really  only  one  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  It  is  an 
old  way  and  a  radical  way.  But  the  world  of  scholarship  may 
come  back  to  it  in  the  end.  The  fundamental  difficulty  in 
explaining  the  origin  of  Paulinism  will  never  disappear  by 
being  ignored;  it  will  never  yield  to  compromises  of  any  kind. 
It  will  disappear  only  when  Jesus  is  recognized  as  being  really 
what  Paul  presupposes  Him  to  be  and  what  all  the  Gospels 
represent  Him  as  being — the  eternal  Son  of  God,  come  to  earth 
for  the  redemption  of  man,  now  seated  once  more  on  the  throne 
of  His  glory,  and  working  in  the  hearts  of  His  disciples  through 
His  Spirit,  as  only  God  can  work.  Such  a  solution  was  never 
so  unpopular  as  it  is  to-day.  Acceptance  of  it  will  involve 
a  Copernican  revolution  in  many  departments  of  human 
thought  and  life.  But  refusal  of  such  acceptance  has  left 
an  historical  problem  which  so  far  has  not  been  solved. 

At  one  point,  Bousset  admits,  the  religion  of  Paul  was 
based  upon  an  historical  fact.  It  was  based  upon  the  death 
of  Jesus.  But  the  Pauline  interpretation  of  the  death  of 
Jesus  was  derived,  Bousset  believes,  in  important  particulars 
from  contemporary  pagan  religion;  the  Pauline  notion  of 
dying  and  rising  with  Christ  was  formed  under  the  influence 
of  the  widespread  pagan  conception  of  the  dying  and  rising 
god.  This  assertion  has  become  quite  common  among  recent 

1  Wernle,  "Jesus  and  Paulus.     Antithesen  zu  Boussets  Kyrios  Christos," 
in  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  xxv,  1915,  pp.  1-92. 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  313 

scholars ;  material  in  support  of  it  has  been  collected  in  con- 
venient form  by  M.  Bruckner.1  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
evidence  in  support  of  the  assertion  is  of  the  feeblest  kind. 

The  review  of  Hellenistic  religion  which  was  attempted 
in  Chapter  VI  revealed,  indeed,  the  fact  that  certain  gods, 
especially  Attis,  Adonis,  and  Osiris,  were  represented  first  as 
dying  and  then  as  being  resuscitated.  The  similarity  of  these 
figures  to  one  another  may  perhaps  be  explained  by  the  hypo- 
thesis that  all  of  them  were  originally  vegetation  gods,  whose 
death  and  resuscitation  represented  the  withering  of  vegetation 
in  the  autumn  and  its  renewal  in  the  spring.  At  first  sight, 
the  parallel  between  these  gods  and  Jesus  may  seem  striking. 
Jesus  also  was  represented  as  dying  and  as  coming  back  to 
life  again.  But  what  is  the  significance  of  the  parallel?  Can 
it  mean  that  the  entire  New  Testament  story  of  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  derived  from  these  vegetation 
myths?  Such  has  been  the  conclusion  of  certain  modern 
scholars.  But  of  course  this  conclusion  is  absurd,  and  it  is 
not  favored  by  Bousset.  The  essential  historicity  of  the 
crucifixion  of  Jesus  under  Pontius  Pilate  and  of  the  rise  of  the 
belief  in  His  resurrection  among  His  intimate  friends  stands 
too  firm  to  be  shaken  by  any  theory  of  dependence  upon  pagan 
myth.  Thus  the  argument  drawn  from  the  parallel  between 
the  New  Testament  story  and  the  pagan  myth  of  the  dying 
and  rising  god  proves  too  much.  If  it  proves  anything,  it 
proves  that  the  New  Testament  story  of  the  resurrection  was 
derived  from  the  pagan  myth.  But  such  a  view  has  not  been 
held  by  any  serious  historians.  Therefore  it  will  have  to  be 
admitted  that  the  parallel  between  the  belief  that  Adonis  and 
Osiris  and  Attis  died  and  rose  again,  and  the  belief  that  Jesus 
died  and  rose  again  was  not  produced  by  dependence  of  one 
story  upon  the  other.  It  will  have  to  be  recognized,  therefore, 
that  a  parallel  does  not  always  mean  a  relationship  of  de- 
pendence. And  if  it  does  not  do  so  at  one  point,  perhaps  it 
does  not  do  so  at  others. 

But  Bousset  will  insist  that  although  the  New  Testament 
story  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not  originally 
produced  by  the  pagan  myth,  yet  the  influence  of  the  pagan 
conception  made  itself  felt  in  the  interpretation  which  Paul 
placed  upon  the  story.  Paul  believed  that  the  Christian  shared 
1Der  sterbende  und  auferstehende  Gottheiland,  1908. 


314  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

the  fate  of  Christ — died  with  Christ  and  rose  with  Christ. 
But  a  similar  conception  appears  in  the  pagan  religions.  The 
classical  expression  of  this  idea  appears  in  the  oft-quoted 
words  reported  by  Firmicus  Maternus,  "Be  of  good  courage, 
ye  initiates,  since  the  god  is  saved;  for  to  us  there  shall  be 
salvation  out  of  troubles." 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  testimony  of  Firmicus 
Maternus  is  very  late,  and  that  the  evidence  for  the  prevalence 
of  the  conception  in  the  early  period  is  somewhat  scanty.  The 
confident  assertions  of  recent  writers  with  regard  to  these 
matters  are  nothing  short  of  astonishing.  Lay  readers  are 
likely  to  receive  the  impression  that  the  investigator  can  re- 
construct the  conception  of  a  dying  and  rising  god,  and  of 
the  share  which  the  worshipers  have  in  the  death  and  resur- 
rection, on  the  basis  of  some  vast  store  of  information  in  the 
extant  sources.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing  of  the  sort  is 
the  case.  The  extant  information  about  the  conception  in 
question  is  scanty  in  the  extreme,  and  for  the  most  part  dates 
from  long  after  the  time  of  Paul. 

It  would  be  going  too  far,  indeed,  to  assert  that  the  con- 
ception of  the  dying  and  rising  god,  with  its  religious  sig- 
nificance, was  not  in  existence  before  the  Pauline  period.  An 
ancient  Egyptian  text,  for  example,  has  been  quoted  by  Er- 
man,  which  makes  the  welfare  of  the  worshiper  depend  upon 
that  of  Osiris :  "Even  as  Osiris  lives,  he  also  shall  live." 
Very  likely  some  such  conceptions  were  connected  also  with  the 
mourning  and  subsequent  rejoicing  for  Attis  and  Adonis.  But 
if  the  conception  was  existent  in  the  pre-Pauline  period,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  it  was  common.  Certainly  its  prevalence 
has  been  enormously  exaggerated  in  recent  years.  Against 
such  exaggerations,  J.  Weiss — who  surely  cannot  be  accused 
of  any  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  methods  of  comparative  re- 
ligion as  applied  to  the  New  Testament — has  pertinently 
called  attention  to  1  Cor.  i.  23.  Christ  crucified,  Paul  says, 
was  "to  the  Gentiles  foolishness." 2  That  does  not  look 
as  though  the  Gentiles  among  whom  Paul  labored  were  very 

1Erman,  "A  Handbook  of  Egyptian  Religion"  (published  in  the  original 
German  edition  as  a  handbook,  by  the  Generalverwaltung  of  the  Berlin 
Imperial  Museum),  1907,  p.  95. 

aj.  Weiss,  "Das  Problem  der  Entstehung  des  Christentums,"  in  Archiv 
fur  Religionswissenschaft,  xvi,  1913,  p.  490. 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  315 

familiar  with  the  notion  of  a  dying  god.  If  the  contentions 
of  Bruckner  were  correct,  if  the  conception  of  the  dying  god 
were  as  common  in  Paul's  day  as  Bruckner  supposes,  the  Cross 
would  not  have  been  "to  the  Gentiles  foolishness";  on  the  con- 
trary, it  would  have  seemed  to  the  Gentiles  to  be  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world. 

But  even  if  the  early  prevalence  of  the  conception  of  a 
dying  and  rising  god,  with  its  religious  significance,  were  better 
established  than  it  is,  the  dependence  of  Paul  upon  that  con- 
ception would  by  no  means  be  proved.  For  the  Pauline  con- 
ception is  totally  different.  One  difference,  of  course,  is  per- 
fectly obvious  and  is  indeed  generally  recognized — the  Pauline 
Christ  is  represented  as  dying  voluntarily,  and  dying  for  the 
sake  of  men.  He  "loved  me,"  says  Paul,  "and  gave  himself  for 
me."  There  is  absolutely  nothing  like  that  conception  in  the 
case  of  the  pagan  religions.  Osiris,  Adonis,  and  Attis  were 
overtaken  by  their  fate;  Jesus  gave  His  life  freely  away.  The 
difference  is  stupendous ;  it  involves  the  very  heart  of  the  re- 
ligion of  Paul.  How  was  the  difference  caused?  Whence  wad 
derived  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  grace  of  Christ?  Was  it 
derived  from  Jesus  Himself?  Was  it  derived  from  the  knowl- 
edge which  Paul  had  of  the  character  of  Jesus?  The  supposi- 
tion might  seem  to  be  natural.  But  unfortunately,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Bousset,  it  must  be  rejected.  For  if  Paul  had 
had  any  knowledge  of  Jesus'  real  character,  how  could  he  ever 
have  supposed  that  Jesus,  a  mere  man,  was  the  heavenly  Lord? 

Another  difference  is  even  more  fundamental.  The  death 
and  resurrection  of  the  pagan  gods  was  a  matter  of  the  cult; 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Pauline  Christ  was  a  fact 
of  history.  It  has  been  observed  in  the  review  of  Hellenistic 
religion  that  the  cults  in  the  pagan  religions  were  much  more 
firmly  fixed  than  the  myths ;  in  the  opinion  of  modern  scholars, 
the  myths  were  derived  from  the  cults  rather  than  vice  versa. 
So  in  the  case  of  the  "dying  and  rising  gods,"  one  is  struck 
above  all  things  with  the  totally  fluid  character  of  the  myths. 
The  story  of  Attis,  for  example,  is  told  in  many  divergent 
forms,  and  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  slightest 
interest  among  the  Attis  worshipers  for  the  establishment 
of  any  authentic  account  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
the  god.  Particularly  the  "resurrection"  of  the  god  appears 
in  the  myths  of  Attis,  Adonis,  and  Osiris  scarcely  at  all.  The 


316  THE  ORIGIN  OF  PAUL'S  RELIGION 

real  death  and  resurrection  occurred  only  in  the  cult.  Every 
year  in  March,  the  Attis-worshipers  at  Rome  first  saw  the 
god  lying  dead  as  he  was  represented  by  the  fir-tree,  and  then 
rejoiced  in  his  resurrection.  The  death  and  resurrection  were 
hardly  conceived  of  as  events  which  had  happened  once  for 
all  long  ago.  They  were  rather  thought  of  as  happening  at 
every  celebration  of  the  festival. 

The  Pauline  treatment  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  entirely  different.  By  Bousset,  indeed,  the  difference 
is  partly  obscured;  Bousset  tries  to  show  .that  the  Pauline 
conception  of  the  dying  and  rising  of  the  believer  with  Christ 
was  derived  from  the  celebration  of  the  sacraments.  But 
there  could  be  no  more  radical  error.  What  is  plainest  of  all 
in  the  Epistles  is  the  historical  character  of  the  Pauline  mes- 
sage. The  religion  of  Paul  was  rooted  in  an  event,  and  the 
sacraments  were  one  way  of  setting  forth  the  significance  of 
the  event.  The  event  was  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ  in 
His  death  and  resurrection. 

Here  lies  the  profoundest  of  all  differences  between  Paul 
and  contemporary  religion.  Paulinism  was  not  a  philosophy; 
it  was  not  a  set  of  directions  for  escape  from  the  misery  of 
the  world ;  it  was  not  an  account  of  what  had  always  been  true. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  an  account  of  something  that  had 
happened.  The  thing  that  had  happened,  moreover,  was  not 
hidden  in  the  dim  and  distant  past.  The  account  of  it  was 
not  evolved  as  a  justification  for  existing  religious  forms. 
On  the  contrary,  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  upon 
which  Paul's  gospel  was  based,  had  happened  only  a  few  years 
before.  And  the  facts  could  be  established  by  adequate  testi- 
mony; the  eyewitnesses  could  be  questioned,  and  Paul  appeals 
to  the  eyewitnesses  in  detail.  The  single  passage,  1  Cor.  xv.  1-8, 
is  sufficient  to  place  a  stupendous  gulf  between  the  Pauline 
Christ  and  the  pagan  saviour-gods.  But  the  character  of 
Paulinism  does  not  depend  upon  one  passage.  Everywhere 
in  the  Epistles  Paul  stakes  all  his  life  upon  the  truth  of  what 
he  says  about  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The 
gospel  which  Paul  preached  was  an  account  of  something  that 
had  happened.  If  the  account  was  true,  the  origin  of  Paulin- 
ism is  explained ;  if  it  was  not  true,  the  Church  is  based  upon 
an  inexplicable  error. 

This  latter  alternative  has  been  examined  in  the  preceding 


THE  LORDSHIP  OF  JESUS  317 

discussion.  If  Jesus  was  not  the  divine  Redeemer  that  Paul 
says  He  was,  how  did  the  Pauline  religion  of  redemption  arise? 
Three  great  hypotheses  have  been  examined  and  have  been 
found  wanting.  Paulinism,  it  has  been  shown,  was  not  based 
upon  the  Jesus  of  modern  naturalism ;  if  Jesus  was  only  what 
He  is  represented  by  modern  naturalistic  historians  as  being, 
then  what  is  really  distinctive  of  Paul  was  not  derived  from 
Jesus.  The  establishment  of  that  fact  has  been  a  notable 
achievement  of  Wrede  and  Bousset.  But  if  what  is  essential 
in  Paulinism  was  not  derived  from  Jesus,  whence  was  it  de- 
rived? It  was  not  derived,  as  Wrede  believed,  from  the  pre- 
Christian  apocalyptic  notions  of  the  Messiah;  for  the  apoca- 
lyptic Messiah  was  not  an  object  of  worship,  and  not  a  living 
person  to  be  loved.  It  was  not  derived  from  pagan  religion, 
in  accordance  with  the  brilliant  hypothesis  of  Bousset;  for 
pagan  influence  is  excluded  by  the  self-testimony  of  Paul,  and 
the  pagan  parallels  utterly  break  down.  But  even  if  the  paral- 
lels were  ten  times  closer  than  they  are,  the  heart  of  the  prol> 
lem  would  not  even  have  been  touched.  The  heart  of  the  prob- 
lem is  found  in  the  Pauline  relation  to  Christ.  That  relation 
cannot  be  described  by  mere  enumeration  of  details ;  it  cannot 
be  reduced  to  lower  terms;  it  is  an  absolutely  simple  and  indi-v 
visible  thing.  The  relation  of  Paul  to  Christ  is  a  relation 
of  love ;  and  love  exists  only  between  persons.  It  is  not  a  group 
of  ideas  that  is  to  be  explained,  if  Paulinism  is  to  be  accounted 
for,  but  the  love  of  Paul  for  his  Saviour.  And  that  love  is 
rooted,  not  in  what  Christ  had  said,  but  in  what  Christ  had 
done.  He  "loved  me  and  gave  Himself  for  me."  There  lies 
the  basis  of  the  religion  of  Paul;  there  lies  the  basis  of  all  of 
Christianity.  That  basis  is  confirmed  by  the  account  of 
Jesus  which  is  given  in  the  Gospels,  and  given,  indeed,  in  all 
the  sources.  It  is  opposed  only  by  modern  reconstructions. 
And  those  reconstructions  are  all  breaking  down.  The  religion 
of  Paul  was  not  founded  upon  a  complex  of  ideas  derived  from 
Judaism  or  from  paganism.  It  was  founded  upon  the  his- 
torical Jesus.  But  the  historical  Jesus  upon  whom  it  was 
founded  was  not  the  Jesus  of  modern  reconstruction,  but  the 
Jesus  of  the  whole  New  Testament  and  of  Christian  faith ;  not 
a  teacher  who  survived  only  in  the  memory  of  His  disciples, 
but  the  Saviour  who  after  His  redeeming  work  was  done  still 
lived  and  could  still  be  loved. 


INDEX 


I  NAMES  AND  SUBJECTS 

Acts,  Book  of,  32-40,  should  be  al- 
lowed to  help  in  interpreting  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  125 

Adonis,  314f.,  religion  of,  234f. 

Adoptionist  Christology,  not  found 
in  Pauline  Epistles,  118 

Agabus,  33f.,  78 

Agrae,  mysteries  of,  217 

Alexander  the  Great,  220 

Alexandria,  Church  at,  16 

Ananias   (in  Acts),  71 

Ananias  (in  Josephus),  12 

Andronicus  and  Junias,  140f. 

Anrich,  212 

Antioch,  29f.,  77ff.,  122ff.:  Apostolic 
Decree  addressed  to,  94ff.;  Peter 
at,  97-106;  Church  at,  16 

Antioch,  pre-Pauline  Christianity  of: 
not  channel  by  which  pagan  re- 
ligion influenced  Paul,  257ff.;  how 
investigated,  257-259;  not  essen- 
tially different  from  that  of  Je- 
rusalem, 259f.;  did  it  originate 
application  of  term  "Lord"  to 
Jesus,  299,  303-307 

Apocalypses,  Jewish,  not  used  by 
Paul,  192f. 

Apocrypha,  Old  Testament,  182f. 

Apollos,  109 

Apostles,  the  original:  attitude  to- 
ward Paul  at  the  Apostolic  Coun- 
cil, 86f.;  relation  with  Paul,  120- 
137;  observed  Mosaic  Law,  126- 
128;  were  inwardly  free  from 
Law,  127f.;  agreed  with  Paul 
about  the  person  of  Christ,  135- 
137;  contact  with  Paul,  139 

Apostolic  Council,  the,  39,  80-100 

Apostolic  Decree,  the,  87-98,  110: 
was  accompanied  by  Judas  and 
Silas,  140 

Apostolic  Fathers,  the,  6 

Apuleius,  222f.,  233f.,  241 

Arabia,  Paul's  journey  to,  71-74 

Aretas,  74 

"Asclepius,"  the,  242 


Atargatis,  235 

Athenodorus,  45 

Athletic  games,  use  of  figures  re- 
garding the,  by  Paul,  260 

Attis,  314-316:  religion  of,  227-231; 
mysteries  of,  283 

Baals,  the  Syrian,  235 

Bacchanalian  rites  in  Italy,  250 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  91,  139,  181,  197 

Baldensperger,  178,  192,  204 

Baptism,  in  pagan  religion,  280f. 

Baptism  for  the  dead,  288 

Barnabas,  16,  78fF.,  83f.,  99:  was  car- 
ried away  with  Peter  at  Antioch, 
102;  dispute  with  Paul,  105-107; 
relations  with  Paul,  106 f.;  was 
member  of  Jerusalem  Church, 
137 f.;  contact  with  Paul,  137f. 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  18 

Baruch,  Second  Book  of,  180,  191 

Baur,  F.  C.,  6,  31,  37,  85,  105,  107, 
119ff.,  124  f.,  128  f. 

Beecher,  182 

Bengel,  103 

Beyschlag,  60,  63,  65 

Bible,  introduction  of  the,  into  Indo- 
European  civilization,  20 

Blass,  90 

Bohlig,  45,  141,  300 

Bousset,  W.,  28-30,  47,  49,  52,  67,  72, 
78,  156,  161,  172-199,  204-207,  244, 
257-262,  267 f.,  270,  274,  278,  293- 
317 

Bruckner,  27,  185,  191,  194ff.,  205f., 
211,  234,  313,  315 

Buddhism,  early,  274 

Burton,  E.  D.,  267f.,  271 

Byblos,  231,  234f. 

Charles,  180,  186,  188,  190 

"Christ,"  the  term,  297f. 

Christianity,  origin  of:  importance 
of  the  question,  3f. ;  two  ways  of 
investigating,  4f.;  testimony  of 
Paul  to,  4f. 


319 


320 


INDEX 


Christianity,  monotheism  of,  306 

"Christians,"  first  application  of  the 
name,  78 

Christology,  the  Pauline:  not  derived 
from  pre-Christian  Jewish  doc- 
trine of  the  Messiah,  173-207;  not 
derived  from  pre-Christian  Jewish 
doctrine  of  Wisdom,  199-204;  not 
derived  from  pagan  religion,  293- 
317 

Christ-party,  the,  at  Corinth,  120 

Circumcision,  17 

Clemen,  262 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  230,  281 

Clement  of  Rome,  105 

Colossae,  errorists  in,  129  f. 

Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  31,  104 

Corinthian  Chmrch,  parties  in  the, 
107-109 

Corinthians,  Epistles  to  the,  31 

Cornelius,  16,  19,  83 

Cross  of  Christ,  the,  19,  63f. 

Cult,  Bousset's  exaggeration  of  the 
importance  of  the,  303ff. 

Cumont,  212,  2271f.,  232,  236,  243f., 
247,  281  f. 

Cybele,  religion  of,  8,  227-231 

Cybele  and  Attis,  mysteries  of,  229- 
231 

Cynics,  the,  225 

Dalman,  187 

Damascus,  71  if.,  76:  preaching  of 
Paul  at,  72f.;  escape  of  Paul  from, 
74 

Damascus,  pre-Pauline  Christianity 
of:  how  investigated,  257-259;  not 
channel  by  which  pagan  religion 
influenced  Paul,  257ff.;  not  es- 
sentially different  from  that  of 
Jerusalem,  259f. ;  did  it  originate 
application  of  the  term  "Lord"  to 
Jesus,  299 

Date,  question  of,  with  reference  to 
pagan  ideas  and  practices,  237-41 

Death  of  Christ,  the,  was  voluntary, 
315 

Death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus:  his- 
toricity of,  312f. ;  not  derived  from 
the  cult,  315f. 

Death  and  resurrection  of  pagan 
gods,  the  myths  concerning, 
thought  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  cults,  31 5f. 

Deification:  in  pagan  religion,  245, 
263;  not  found  in  Paul,  263-265 

Demeter,  217f. 

Denney,  James,  155,  304 


Dieterich,  246f.,  251 

Dionysus,  215f.,  religion  of,  282f. 

Dispersion,  Judaism  of  the:  was  it 

"liberal,"  175-177;  did  not  produce 

Gentile  mission  of  Paul,  175ff. 
Drews,  294 
Dualism  of  Hellenistic  age,  different 

from  Paulinism,  276 
Dying  and  rising  god,  the,  211,  234 f., 

237,  312-316 

Ebionites,  the,  125f. 

Ecclesiasticus,  200 

Eleusis,  mysteries  of,  217-219,  281 

Emmet,  81,  176,  180 

Emperors,  worship  of  the,  221 

Enoch,  First  Book  of,  181,  184,  186- 

189,  193,  198f.,  203 
Epicureans,  the,  225 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  31,  104 
Erman,  314 

Eschatology,  consistent,  156f. 
Essenes,  177 
Ethics,     same     teaching     about,     in 

Jesus  and  in  Paul,  164f. 
Eusebius,  139 
Ezra,  Fourth  Book  of,  176,  180,  187, 

189f.,  196 

Faith  in  Jesus,  did  not  originate  at 

Antioch,  303ff. 
"Famine    visit,"    historicity    of    the, 

84-86 

Farnell,  212,  217 
Fatherhood   of  God,   same  teaching 

about,  in  Jesus  and  in  Paul,  161- 

164 
Firmicus    Maternus,    229,    237,    241, 

251,  281,  314 
"Flesh,"    Pauline   use   of   the   term: 

without   parallel   in   pagan   usage, 

275f.;    based    on    Old    Testament, 

276 

Future  life,  interest  in  the,  stimulat- 
ed by  worship  of  Dionysus  and  by 

Orphism,  21 6f. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to  the:  genuine- 
ness, 31 ;  addressees,  81 ;  date, 
81  ff. ;  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  I  Cor.  xv.  1-11,  144f. 

Gamaliel,  47,  52 

Gautama,  274 

Gentile  Christianity:  in  what  sense 
founded  by  Paul,  7-21;  in  what 
sense  founded  by  Jesus,  13-15; 
part  in  the  founding  of,  taken  by 
missionaries  other  than  Paul,  15f. 


INDEX 


321 


Gentiles,  reception  of,  according  to 
the  Old  Testament,  17 

Gischala,  44 

Gnosis,  262-265:  idea  of,  in  Paul, 
263-265;  not  a  technical  term  in 
Paul,  263 

Gnosticism,  247-251,  268f.:  pagan 
basis  of,  247;  can  it  be  used  as  a 
witness  to  pre-Christian  paganism, 
247-250;  Christian  elements  in, 
249f.;  use  in,  of  terms  "Spirit" 
and  "spiritual"  due  to  dependence 
on  the  New  Testament,  268f. 

"God,"  the  term,  306f. 

Golden  Rule,  negative  form  of  the, 
88f. 

Gospel,  the  Pauline,  was  a  matter  of 
history,  264 f. 

Gospels,  the:  contain  an  account  of 
Jesus  like  that  presupposed  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  153f.;  were  they 
influenced  by  Paul,  154f.,  159 

Grace,  doctrine  of,  both  in  Jesus  and 
in  Paul,  164 

Grace  of  God  according  to  Paul,  279 

Greece,  religion  of:  influenced  Rome, 
212f.;  moral  defects  of,  214;  was 
anthropomorphic  polytheism,  214 
f.;  was  connected  with  the  state, 
214f.;  mystical  elements  in,  215ff.; 
was  undermined  by  philosophy,  by 
the  fall  of  the  city-state,  and  by 
the  influence  of  the  eastern  re- 
ligions, 219f. 

Greek  language:  in  Palestine,  53, 
302;  Paul's  use  of,  44,  46,  53 

Gressmann,  181 

Hadad,  235 

Harnack,  A.  von,  6f.,  26,  33-36,  98, 
119,  263,  273 

"Hebrew,"  meaning  of  the  word,  46 

Heinrici,  265 

Heitmiiller,  47,  49,  52,  76-78,  157, 
243f.,  257-261,  265,  282f. 

Helbig,  46 

"Hellenist,"  meaning  of  the  word, 
46 

Hellenistic  age,  the:  cosmopolitanism 
in,  220;  individualism  in,  221;  re- 
ligious propaganda  in,  221  f. ;  syn- 
cretism in,  222f.;  longing  for  re- 
demption in,  223f. 

Hellenists,  the,  302 

Hepding,  227-231,  283 

Hermas,  Shepherd  of,  242 

Hermes  Trismegistus,  242-245,  248f., 
261  f.,  265-267,  285:  was  it  influ- 


enced by  Christianity,  242f.,  247f.; 
importance  of,  243f.;  places  soul 
higher  than  spirit,  248f.;  termin- 
ology different  from  Paul's,  265- 
270 

Hermetic  Corpus,  242-245,  277 

Herod  Agrippa  I,  death  of,  79 

Hilgenfeld,  90 

Hippolytus,  218,  249f. 

Holstein,  63-65,  76 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  22 

Homer,  213f. 

"Illumination,"  the  term,  273 

Initiated,  to  be,  use  of  the  verb  by 
Paul,  271  f. 

Irenaeus,  89 

Isis,  religion  of,  8f. 

Isis,  mysteries  of,  232ff.,  had  sacra- 
mental washings  according  to 
Tertullian,  281 

Isis  and  Osiris,  religion  of,  231-234 

Izates  of  Adiabene,  12 

James,  94,  98:  contact  of  with  Paul, 
75,  109-113,  137;  men  who  came 
from,  101;  attitude  of,  toward 
Paul,  lllf.;  attitude  of  Paul  to- 
ward, 120ff . ;  called  "the  brother  of 
the  Lord,"  299f. 

Jerome,  44 

Jerusalem  Church,  the,  293-303:  at- 
titude of,  toward  the  Law,  19;  re- 
lief of  the  poor  of,  99f.,  104,  112f.; 
new  principle  of  the  life  of,  127; 
community  of  goods  in,  138;  con- 
tact of,  with  Paul,  139;  treasured 
tradition  about  Jesus,  139;  direct 
influence  of,  upon  Paul,  258f . ;  use 
of  the  term  "Lord"  by,  294-303 

Jesus  Christ:  historicity  of,  5;  in 
what  sense  founder  of  the  Gentile 
mission,  13-15;  Pauline  conception 
of,  22;  deification  of,  according  to 
modern  liberalism,  22-24;  Mes- 
siahship  of,  according  to  the  lib- 
eral hypothesis,  25;  consciousness 
of  sonship,  according  to  the  liberal 
hypothesis,  25;  importance  of,  in 
the  liberal  explanation  of  the  ori- 
gin of  Paulinism,  25;  Messiahship 
of,  according  to  Bousset,  29; 
Lordship  of,  according  to  Bous- 
set, 29f.;  divinity  of,  disputed  by 
no  one  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  129- 
137;  knowledge  of,  according  to 
Paul,  142-144;  words  of,  in  Paul- 
ine Epistles,  147-149;  details  of  the 


322 


INDEX 


life  of,  known  to  Paul,  149f.; 
character  of,  appreciated  by  Paul, 
150f.;  comparison  of,  with  Paul, 
153-169;  presented  Himself  as 
Messiah,  155-158;  personal  affin- 
ity of,  with  Paul,  165;  regarded  by 
Paul  as  a  Redeemer,  not  as  a  mere 
teacher,  167-169 

Jesus  Christ,  the  liberal  account  of: 
attested  by  none  of  the  sources, 
155;  involves  psychological  contra- 
diction, 155-158;  cannot  explain  the 
origin  of  the  belief  in  the  divine 
Redeemer,  158f. 

John,  98,  went  to  Ephesus,  128 

Jones,  Maurice,  81 

Josephus,  79,  177,  183 

Judaea,  Churches  of,  50-52,  75f. 

Judaism:  missionary  activity  of,  9- 
11;  prepared  for  Pauline  mission, 
lOf. ;  did  not  produce  Christian 
universalism,  11-13;  had  no  doc- 
trine of  the  vicarious  death  of  the 
Messiah,  65,  196ff.;  divisions  with- 
in, 175-177;  did  not  serve  as 
medium  for  pagan  influence  upon 
Paul,  255f. 

Judaism,  rabbinical,  176 

Judas,  140 

Judaizers,  the,  19,  86,  98,  121,  125f., 
128,  131,  135,  278:  activity  of,  sub- 
sided during  the  third  missionary 
journey,  104,  107;  did  not  dispute 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  129-137 

Judgment,  teaching  about,  both  in 
Jesus  and  in  Paul,  164 

Justification,  Pauline  idea  of:  can 
find  no  analogy  in  Hermes  Trisme- 
gistus,  277;  importance  of,  in 
Paul's  thinking,  277-279;  not  pro- 
duced merely  as  weapon  against 
the  Judaizers,  278f. ;  intimately 
connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
new  creation,  279 

Justin  Martyr,  185,  196,  236,  273, 
281 

Juvenal,  227 


Kabeiri,  the,  219 

Kennedy,   H.   A.  A.,   118,  233,  262, 

281 
Kingdom    of    God,    same    teaching 

about,    in    Jesus     and    in     Paul, 

160f. 

Knowling,  104,  109,  147,  299 
Koine,  the,  220 


Krenkel,  44f.,  59 
Kroll,  J.,  242,  244,  249,  269 
Kroll,  W.,  242,  245 
Kykeon,  the,  218,  281 


Laborers  in  the  vineyard,  parable  of 
the,  164 

Lake,  Kirsopp,  12f.,  81  f.,  89,  98 

Lake  and  Jackson,  186 

Law,  the  ceremonial,  attitude  of 
Jesus  toward,  14f. 

Law,  the  Mosaic:  function  of,  ac- 
cording to  Paul,  18;  attitude  of 
the  early  Jerusalem  Church  to- 
ward, 19 ;  observance  of,  by  Jewish 
Christians,  92f.,  lOlf.;  Jewish 
Christians  zealous  for,  110;  added 
to,  by  the  Jews,  178;  Paul's  early 
zeal  for,  256 

Legalism,  Jewish,  178-181 

Lexical  method  of  determining  ques- 
tions of  dependence,  262 

Liberalism,  was  not  the  method  of 
Paul  in  founding  Gentile  Christi- 
anity, 17 

Liberal  Judaism,  was  not  the  at- 
mosphere of  Paul's  boyhood  home, 
47,  256 

Lietzmann,  127 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  47,  119 

Lipsius,  72 

Livy,  250 

Loisy,  47,  76,  229,  262 

Lord,  the,  connected  by  Paul  with 
the  Spirit,  31  Iff. 

"Lord,"  the  term:  applied  by  Paul 
to  the  Jesus  who  was  on  earth, 
117f.;  use  of,  in  primitive  Jeru- 
salem Church,  294-303;  occurrence 
of,  in  the  Gospels,  295-298;  the 
Aramaic  basis  of,  301,  received 
Greek  form  in  Jerusalem,  301  f.; 
not  for  the  first  time  applied  to 
Jesus  at  Antioch,  303ff.;  use  of, 
in  pagan  religion,  305 f.;  use  of,  in 
the  Septuagint,  307f. 

Lord's  Supper,  the :  account  of  insti- 
tution of,  148f.,  151f.;  was  thought 
by  Justin  Martyr  to  be  imitated 
in  religion  of  Mithras,  236;  com- 
parison of,  with  pagan  rites,  281- 
283;  not  dependent  upon  pagan 
notion  of  eating  the  god,  282f. 

Lucian,  225,  234f.,  241 

Luke,  36f. 

Lycaonia,  Apostolic  Decree  extended 
into,  94 


INDEX 


323 


Maccabees,  Fourth  Book  of,  196 

Magic:  affinity  of,  for  the  mysteries, 
246;  difference  of,  from  religion, 
246 

Magical  papyri,  the,  246f. 

"Mar,"  the  term,  300f. 

Maranatha,  300f. 

Marciofn,  18 

Marcus  Aurelius,  226 

Mark,  John,  105,  106,  107,  relations 
of,  with  Paul  and  with  Peter,  138f. 

Marriage,  the  sacred,  230 

"Master,"  the  term,  applied  to  Jesus, 
308 

Mead,  244 

Meals,  sacred,  in  the  mystery  re- 
ligions, 281-283 

Menander,  271 

M&iard,  244 

Messiah,  the:  doctrines  of,  in  Old 
Testament,  181f. ;  doctrine  of,  in 
Judaism,  182ff.;  Old  Testament 
basis  for  later  doctrine  of,  191; 
pre-Christian  doctrine  of,  exalted 
by  identification  with  Jesus,  204 

Messiah,  the  apocalyptic:  was  dif- 
ferent from  the  Pauline  Christ, 
194-199;  had  no  part  in  creation, 
194;  had  no  intimate  relation  to 
the  believer,  194-197;  was  not  di- 
vine, 197-199;  what  could  have  led 
to  his  identification  with  Jesus, 
205  f. 

"Mind,"  the  term,  in  Hermes  Tris- 
megistus,  267f.,  not  produced  by 
philosophical  modification  of  the 
term  "Spirit" 

Mind,  not  the  same  thing  as  Spirit  in 
1  Cor.  ii.  15,  16,  269 

Miracles:  objection  drawn  from  ac- 
counts of,  against  Lucan  author- 
ship of  Acts,  33-37;  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  Gospel  account 
of  Jesus,  154f. 

Mithras,  mysteries  of,  236,  256:  had 
sacramental  washings  according  to 
Tertullian,  281;  bread  and  cup  in, 
281  f. 

Mithras,  religion  of,  8f.,  235-237 

Mithras-liturgy,  the  so-called,  247, 
251,  267 

Mnason,  112 

Mommsen,  46  f. 

Montefiore,  176f. 

Morgan,  W.,  118,  164 

Moulton  and  Milligan,  281 

Murray,  Gilbert,  223 

"Mystery,"  the  term,  in  Paul,  272f. 


Mystery  religions,  the,  227ff:  did 
not  produce  Gentile  Christianity, 
8f.;  were  tolerant  of  other  faiths, 
9;  information  about,  in  a  Naas- 
sene  writing,  249 f.;  technical  vo- 
cabulary of,  262ff. ;  idea  of  gnosis 
in,  262-265;  not  the  source  of 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  270; 
probably  had  not  dominated  many 
converts  of  Paul,  273;  produced 
no  strong  consciousness  of  sin, 
276;  did  not  produce  the  Pauline 
teaching  about  the  sacraments, 
279-290 

Mysticism,  pagan,  239 ff. 

Naassenes,  sect  of  the,  249 f. 
Neutral  text,  the,  87ff. 

Oepke,  264f.,  273 

Old  Catholic  Church,  6,  119f.:  found- 
ed on  unity  between  Peter  and 
Paul,  104f. 

Olschewski,  194 

Oracula  Chaldaica,  the,  245f. 

Orphism,  21 6f. 

Osiris,  229,  231  ff.,  314f. 

Pagan  religion:  through  what  chan- 
nels could  it  have  influenced  Paul, 
255-261;  did  it  influence  Paul  di- 
rectly, 260f. 

Papias,  139 

Parthey,  244. 

Particularism,  in  the  Old  Testament, 

Pastoral  Epistles,  the,  31  f. 

Paul:  testimony  of,  as  to  origin  of 
Christianity,  4f.;  influence  of,  6- 
21;  geographical  extent  of  the  la- 
bors of,  16f.;  importance  of  the 
theology  of,  in  foundation  of  Gen- 
tile mission,  17-20;  in  what  ways 
a  witness  about  the  origin  of 
Christianity,  21 ;  the  genius  of,  not 
incompatible  with  the  truth  of  his 
witnessing,  21;  monotheism  of,  23; 
sources  of  information  about,  31- 
40;  birth  of,  at  Tarsus,  43f.;  Ro- 
man citizenship  of,  45 f.;  Pharisa- 
ism of,  46 f.;  was  not  a  liberal  Jew, 
47,  175ff.;  was  in  Jerusalem  be- 
fore conversion,  47-53;  rabbinical 
training  of,  52f. ;  did  he  see  Jesus 
before  the  conversion,  54-57;  knew 
about  Jesus  before  the  conversion, 
57f.,  66f.;  conversion  of,  58-68, 


324 


INDEX 


145-147,  205,  305;  malady  of,  58f.; 
did  he  have  the  consciousness  of 
sin  before   his   conversion,   64-66; 
the  conversion  of,  involved  meet- 
ing with  a  person,  67f. ;   baptism 
of,  71;  at  Damascus,  71ff.;  went 
to    Arabia,    71-74;    escaped    from 
Damascus,  74;  rebuked  Peter,  97, 
102;  division  of  labor  with  Peter, 
99f.;  first  visit  of,  to  Jerusalem, 
74-77;  in  Syria  and  Cilicia,  77;  at 
Antioch,   78;    famine   visit   of,   to 
Jerusalem,      78ff. ;      agreed      with 
Peter  in  principle,  102,  123f . ;  rela- 
tions of,  with  Peter,  102-105,  137; 
dispute    of,   with    Barnabas,    105- 
107;  relations  of,  with  Barnabas, 
106f.,    137f.;     relations    of,    with 
James,   109-113;   participation   of, 
in  a  Jewish  vow,  llOf.;  has  been 
regarded  by  the  Church  as  a  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus,  117;  regarded  him- 
self as  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  117f.; 
was    regarded    as    a    disciple    of 
Jesus  by  Jesus'   friends,  118-137; 
attitude  of,  toward  Peter,  120ff.; 
attitude  of,  toward  James,  120ff.; 
rebuked      Peter,      122-124;      had 
abundant  sources  of  information 
about  Jesus,  137-142;  relations  of, 
with  Mark,  138f.;  contact  of,  with 
the  original  apostles  and  with  the 
Jerusalem  Church,  139;  contact  of, 
with  Silas,  140;  the  gospel  of,  in 
what  sense  did  he  receive  it  direct- 
ly from  Christ,  145-147;  meaning 
of  the  conversion  of,  for  him,  145- 
147 ;  shows  knowledge  of  words  of 
Jesus,    147-149;    shows   knowledge 
of    details    of   Jesus'    life,    149f.; 
shows  .appreciation  of  Jesus'  char- 
acter,   150f. ;    knew    more    about 
Jesus    than    he    has    told    in    the 
Epistles,   151-153;  comparison  of, 
with  Jesus,  153-169;  personal  af- 
finity of,  with  Jesus,  165;  was  not 
a  disciple  of  "the  liberal  Jesus," 
166-169;  his  pre-conversion  belief 
about   the   Messiah,    192-194;    was 
not    dependent    upon    the    Jewish 
apocalypses,  192f.;  personal  rela- 
tion of,  to  Christ,  was  not  derived 
from  mere  reflection  on  the  death 
of  the  Messiah,  194-197;  similarity 
of,  to  Jesus,  not  explained  by  com- 
mon dependence  on  Judaism,  206; 
the  gospel  of,  was  a  matter  of  his- 
tory, 264  f.;  how  far  did  he  use  a 


terminology  derived  from  the  mys- 
teries, 271-273 

Pauline  Epistles,  the  genuineness  of, 
31  f. 

Paulinism:  required  exclusive  devo- 
tion, 9;  was  a  religion  of  redemp- 
tion, 22,  167-169;  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ  in,  was  not  dis- 
puted even  by  Judaizers,  129- 
137;  was  supernaturalistic,  288f.; 
was  not  external,  289 f.;  was  in- 
dividualistic, 309fi\;  was  not  de- 
veloped from  the  cult,  309if.;  was 
personal,  311f.,  317;  was  histori- 
cal, 316 

Paulinism,  the  origin  of:  four  ways 
of  explaining,  24ff. ;  supernatural- 
istic explanation  of,  24;  liberal  ex- 
planation of,  24-26;  radical  expla- 
nations of,  26ff. ;  found  in  pre- 
Christian  Judaism  by  Wrede  and 
BrUckner,  27f.;  found  in  paganism 
by  Bousset,  30;  not  really  ex- 
plained by  development  from  the 
liberal  Jesus,  117-169;  not  really 
explained  by  Judaism,  173-207;  not 
really  explained  by  paganism,  211- 

Persephone,  218 
Personality,  idea  of,  202 f. 
Peter:  received  Cornelius,  16;  with 
Paul  in  Jerusalem,  75-77;  at 
Antioch,  97-106;  rebuked  by  Paul, 
97,  102,  122-124;  division  of  labor 
with  Paul,  99f.;  relations  of,  with 
Paul,  102-105 ;  attitude  of  Paul  to- 
ward, 120ff.;  agreed  with  Paul  in 
principle,  123f.;  not  in  harmony 
with  Ebionism,  125f.;  went  to 
Rome,  127f.;  contact  with  Paul, 
137;  relations  of,  with  Mark, 
139 

Pharisaism,  not  influenced  by  pagan 
religion,  255f. 

Pharisees,  the,  177 

Philemon,  Epistle  to,  31 

Philippians,  Epistle  to  the,  31,  104 

Philo,  183,  250f.:  use  of  term 
"Spirit"  by,  due  to  Old  Testament, 
268 

Philosophy:  undermined  the  religion 
of  Greece,  219;  practical  interest 
of,  in  the  Hellenistic  age,  224ff. 

Plato,  224f.,  275 

Plooij,  81 

Plutarch,  231,  236 

Poimandres,  the,  242-245 

Posidonius,  225,  250 


INDEX 


325 


Princeton  Biblical  Studies,  7,  17,  37, 
117 

Princeton  Theological  Review,  37,  78, 
155 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  190,193 

Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 182 

Ptolemy  1,  231 

Pythagoreanism,  217 

Ramsay,  45,  56,  81 

Rationalizing,  revived  by  Torrey 
and  others,  34 

Redemption:  Paulinism  a  religion  of, 
22,  167-169;  was  desired  in  the 
Hellenistic  age,  223f.;  value  of, 
224;  in  pagan  religion  and  in  Paul, 
255-279;  idea  of,  in  Hellenistic  age, 
274 if.;  idea  of,  not  an  abnormal 
thing,  275;  Pauline  conception  of, 
was  not  derived  from  pagan  cults, 
274ff.;  Pauline  idea  of,  involves 
salvation  from  sin,  276 f. 

Regeneration:  in  pagan  religion,  230, 
233,  240f.,  244 f.;  associated,  in 
Paul,  with  justification,  279 

Reitzenstein,  R.,  242-244,  246,  248ff., 
274,  277,  262-280 

Religion  and  theology:  union  of,  ac- 
cording to  Wrede,  27;  separation 
of,  according  to  the  liberal  hy- 
pothesis, 25 f.;  not  to  be  separated 
in  Paul,  166ff. 

Revelation,  Book  of,  120 

Ritschl,  A.,  6,  38f.,  119f.,  125 

Ritschlian  theology,  the,  23 

Rohde,  212,  223 

Romans,  Epistle  to  the:  genuineness 
of,  31;  date  of,  81  f.;  can  it  be 
used  in  the  reconstruction  of  the 
pre-Pauline  Christianity  of  Da- 
mascus and  Antioch,  259 

Rome,  Church  at,  16 

Rome,  the  native  religion  of,  212f. 

Sabazius,  215 

Sacraments,  the  Pauline:  were  not 
derived  from  the  mystery  re- 
ligions, 279-290;  did  not  convey 
blessing  ex  opere  operate,  283-288 ; 
were  outward  signs  of  an  inner 
experience,  286f. 

Sadducees,  the,  177 

Samothrace,  the  mysteries  of,  219 

Schurer,  23,  65,  79,  156,  180,  183, 
186,  190,  196 

Seneca,  226 


Septuagint,  importance  of  the,  307f. 

Serapis,  religion  of,  232ff. 

Servant  coming  in  from  the  field, 
parable  of  the,  164 

Sethe,  281 

Showerman,  227,  231 

Sieifert,  72 

Silas,  16:  contact  of,  with  Paul,  140; 
was  member  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church,  140 

Sin,  consciousness  of:  in  Judaism, 
178-181;  in  Paul,  276f. 

Smith,  W.  B.,  294 

Solomon,  Psalms  of,  184 

Son  of  Man,  the:  in  I  Enoch,  181, 
186ff. ;  origin  and  meaning  of  the 
title,  187ff.;  idea  of,  dominated 
the  early  Jerusalem  Church,  ac- 
cording to  Bousset,  293f.,  298 

Soul:  placed  higher  than  spirit  in 
Hermes  Trismegistus  and  lower 
than  Spirit  in  Paul,  248 f.,  267f.; 
conception  of  the,  in  Paul,  266if. 

Spirit:  placed  lower  than  soul  in 
Hermes  Trismegistus  and  (when 
the  word  designates  the  Spirit  of 
God)  higher  than  soul  in  Paul, 
248  f.,  26  7  f . ;  no  evidence  of  popular 
pagan  use  of  the  term  analogous 
to  Pauline  usage,  267-270;  Greek 
materialistic  use  of  the  term,  267; 
use  of  the  term  in  Philo  shows  in- 
fluence of  the  Old  Testament, 
268;  use  of  the  term  in  Gnosticism 
due  to  dependence  on  New  Testa- 
ment, 268f.;  use  of  the  term  in 
Menander,  270 

Spirit,  Pauline  conception  of  the, 
265-271:  different  from  that  in 
mystery  religions,  265,  270;  does 
not  make  the  divine  Spirit  take  the 
place  of  the  human  soul,  266;  has 
roots  in  the  Old  Testament,  270f.; 
brings  enrichment  of  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching,  270;  not  derived 
from  paganism,  310;  Bousset's 
view  of,  31  Off. 

"Spiritual  man :"  contrast  with  "psy- 
chic man,"  265-270;  the  term  not 
in  accord  with  the  terminology  of 
Hermes  Trismegistus,  266ff. 

Stephen,  16,  19,  66 

Stobaeus,  242 

Stoics,  the:  humanitarian  achieve- 
ments of,  225  f.;  humanitarian 
ideal  of,  differed  from  Christian 
ideal,  225  f. 

Strauss,  34 


326 


INDEX 


Supernaturalism   in   Paul's   religion, 

288f. 

Syncretism,  222f.,  237ff.,  262 
Syria:    religion    of,   77;   use   of   the 

term  "Lord"  in,  300 
Syria  and  Cilicia,  77,  the  Apostolic 

Decree  addressed  to,  94ff. 


Tammuz,  234 

Tarsus,  43f.,  77:  did  not  bring  pa- 
gan influences  effectively  to  bear 
upon  Paul,  256f.;  Christianity  of, 
did  it  originate  application  of  the 
term  "Lord"  to  Jesus,  299. 

Taurobolium,  230f.,  240f.,  251 

"Teleios,"  the  term,  in  Paul,  272f. 

Terminology,  not  necessarily  impor- 
tant as  establishing  dependence  in 
ideas,  272 

Terminology  of  the  mysteries,  the 
technical,  does  not  appear  in  the 
New  Testament,  273 

Tertullian,  281 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patri- 
archs, 190 

Thessalonians,  Epistles  to  the,  31, 
82 

Thrace,  religion  of,  215f. 

Titus,  83 

Torrey,  C.  C.,  34 

Townshend,  196 

Tradition,  Paul  not  indifferent  to- 
ward, 142-153 

Trypho,  Dialogue  with,  185,  196 

TUbingen  School,  the,  31,  37,  99,  108 
f.,  110 


Vegetation  gods,  235 

Vespasian,  183 

Volz,  190 

Vos,  Geerhardus,  266,  295 

Warfield,  B.  B.,  198,  306 

Weber,  81 

Weiss,  B.,  72 

Weiss,  J.,  40,  56,  85,  107,  125,  152, 
154,  156,  314 

Wellhausen,  52,  138 

Wendland,  212 

Wendt,  94f. 

Wernle,  312 

Westcott  and  Hort,  89 

Western  text,  the,  88ff. 

Wicked  husbandmen,  parable  of,  15 

Windisch,  H.,  199-204,  243 

Wisdom,  in  Pauline  Epistles,  not 
identified  with  Christ,  203f. 

Wisdom,  in  pre-Christian  Judaism: 
will  not  account  for  the  Pauline 
Christology,  199-204;  is  active  in 
creation,  200;  enters  into  the  wise 
men,  200;  is  not  expected  to  ap- 
pear at  a  definite  time,  200f.;  is 
not  identified  with  the  Messiah, 
201-204;  is  not  fully  personal, 
202f. 

Wisdom  of  Solomon,  200 

Witkowski,  280 

Wrede,  W.,  26-28,  67,  156,  166,  172- 
199,  204-207,  278,  317 

Zahn,  Th.,  44,  53,  72,  90,  119,  302, 
Zeller,  E.,  37. 
Zielinski,  242. 


II     BIBLICAL  PASSAGES 


OLD  TESTAMENT 


Psalms — 

li.  11 

ex.  1   

ex.  3  (LXX) 

Proverbs — 
viii  . 


Isaiah— 
ix  .... 
xi  . 


270f. 

296 

201 


199f. 


191 
191 


liii  63,  65,  181 

Ixv.  17 191 

Ezekiel— 
viii.  14   .  .234 


Daniel— 

vii.  13  188,  191 

vii.  18  .  .  191 


Micah— 
v.  2  (LXX) 


201 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


Matthew— 

v.  45  162 

vii.  21  296 

xxi.  41 15 

xxviu.  19,  20 14 

Mark— 

iii.  7,  8 51 

vii.  15 15 

x.  45 154,  159 

xi.  3   297 

xii.  35-37 296 

Luke — 

iii.  15 184 

vi.  35   162 

vi.  46 296 

John — 

i.   19-27    184 

vi 282 

Acts— 

ii.  36  295 

iv.  36,  37    137f. 

vi.  1   46,  302 

vii.  56 298 

vii.  58-viii.  1 47 

ix.  1    47 

ix.  10-19 71 

ix.  19    72 

ix.  22 72 

ix.  23 72 


ix.  26-30  73,  74-76 

ix.  27   75 

ix.  28   51 

x.  41   35 

xi.  19-30 79 

xi.  26   78 

xi.  30   78ff. 

xii 78 

xii.  1-17  138 

xii.  25  78ff. 

xiii— xiv 97 

xv  39,  140 

xv.  1-29 80-100,  139 

xv.  19,  20   87 

xv.  21   92 

xv.  23  94 

xv.  27 140 

xv.  28,  29 87-98 

xvi.  4   94 

xxi.  17 109,  112 

xxi.  20-26 HOf. 

xxi.  20-22 113 

xxi.  20   110 

xxi.  25 87,  91 

xxi.  26   110 

xxii.  3 47 

xxii.  12-16  71 

xxii.  17-21 49,  74 

xxiii.  6   46f. 

xxiii.  16-22    49 

xxiv.  17   112 

xxvi.  14   60-62 


327 


328 


INDEX 


Romans — 

i.  7    82 

vi    234,  286f. 

vi.  4 286 

vi.  7 277 

vii 63ff. 

vi.  7-25 65f. 

viii.  16   266 

viii.  30 277 

ix.  5    198 

xiv 93 

xiv.  17 161 

xv.  2,  3 150 

xv.  8  149 

xv.  31    112f. 

xvi 141 

xvi.  7    140f. 

1  Corinthians — 

i_iv   108 

i.  12 107f.,  109,  120 

i.  17    285 

i.  23    314f. 

i.  24 203 

i.  30 203 

ii.  6,  7   272f. 

ii.  8 117f. 

ii.  14,  15 265-267 

ii.  15,  16 269 

iii.  21,  22 109 

iii.  22  104 

vi.  9    160 

vii.  10 147 

vii.  12  147 

vii.  25  147 

viii 93 

viii.  5,  6    305 f. 

viii.  6   194 

ix.  5    104 

ix.   6    106 

ix.  14   147 

ix.  19-22 92f.,  110 

ix.  20    Ill 

ix.  22    260 

x.    16    282 

x.  20   283 

x.  21    282f. 

x.  32-xi.  1   151 

xi.  1  150 

xi.  23ff 148f.,  151f. 

xi.  23   149 

xi.  30    288 

xii.  8  263 

xiii 66 

xiv.  37 147 

xv.  1-11   104,  124  f.,  144  f. 

xv.    1-8    316 

xv.  1-7   .  .  258f. 


xv.  3-8   35 

xv.  3-7   76 

xv.  3 144f.,  149 

xv.  4  149 

xv.  5 77,  104 

xv.  11   77,  104,  109 

xv.  29   288 

xv.  50   161 

xvi.  22    300f. 

2  Corinthians — 

iii.  1    108 

iii.  17   311 

v.  16 54-56,  130f.,  142-144 

viii.  9    150 

x-xiii   107,  109,  131f. 

x.  1   150 

xi.  4-6 131-135 

xi.  5 108f.,  133 

xi.  13    109 

xi.   19,  20    134 

xi.  22    46 

xi.  25    45 

xii.  1-8  59f. 

xii.  2-4  264 

xii.    11    108f. 

Galatians — 

i-ii 144-147 

i.  1    199 

i.  14    47 

i.  16,  17  74 

16    71 

.17 50 

.  18,  19 74-76,  84,  300 

18   79 

.  19   75,  299f. 

.22  50-52,  75 

23    52 

ii.  1-10  . .  .78-100,  104,  121f.,  139 

ii.  1  84,  137 

ii.  2  120ff. 

ii.  6  87,  95,  120ff. 

ii.  9  100,  104,  120ff. 

ii.  10 99f. 

ii.  11-21 .  .87,  93, 100-106, 122-124 

ii.  11-13   97 

ii.  14-21   123f. 

ii.  19 103 

ii.  20 150 

ii.  21   279 

iii.  1    149f. 

iii.  2  287 

iii.  5   271f. 

iii.  27    287 

iv.   14    59f. 

v.  19-21  160 

vi.  3 .121 


INDEX 


329 


Philippians — 

ii.  5ff 150 

ii.  10,  11 118 

iii.  2ff 104 

iii.  5  46,  47 

iv.   12   .  .  271  f. 


Colossians — 

i.  16    194 

ii.  12 284 

iv.  10,  11 107 

iv.    10    105f.,  138 


1   Thessalonians — 

i.  6    151 

iv.  15    147f. 

1  Timothy— 
i.   13   61 


2  Timothy— 

iv.  11    106 

Philemon — 

24 105,  107,  138 

1  Peter— 
v.  13 105,  139 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

MAR  02  2002 


PM 


12,000  (11/95) 


YC  40981 


468580 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


